.

:�=;
�
World Justice
Project

World Justice Project

®
Rule of Law Index
2020
The World Justice Project Rule
of Law Index® 2020
The World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index® 2020
report was prepared by the World Justice Project.
The Index’s conceptual framework and methodology
were developed by Juan Carlos Botero, Mark David
Agrast, and Alejandro Ponce. Data collection and
analysis for the 2020 report was performed by Lindsey
Bock, Erin Campbell, Alicia Evangelides, Emma Frerichs,
Joshua Fuller, Amy Gryskiewicz, Camilo Gutiérrez
Patiño, Matthew Harman, Alexa Hopkins, Ayyub
Ibrahim, Sarah Chamness Long, Rachel L. Martin, Jorge
A. Morales, Alejandro Ponce, Natalia Rodríguez
Cajamarca, Leslie Solís Saravia, Rebecca Silvas, and
Adriana Stephan, with the assistance of Claudia
Bobadilla, Gabriel Hearn-Desautels, Maura McCrary,
Emma Poplack, and Francesca Tinucci. The report was
produced under the executive direction of Elizabeth
Andersen.
Lead graphic designer for this report was Priyanka
Khosla, with assistance from Courtney Babcock.
Lead website designer was Pitch Interactive, with
assistance from Priyanka Khosla, Matthew Harman,
Courtney Babcock, and Rebecca Silvas.
ISBN (print version): 978-1-951330-34-7
ISBN (online version): 978-1-951330-35-4
The World Justice Project
Board of Directors: Sheikha Abdulla Al-Misnad,
Kamel Ayadi, William C. Hubbard, Hassan Bubacar
Jallow, Suet-Fern Lee, Mondli Makhanya, Margaret
McKeown, William H. Neukom, John Nery, Ellen
Gracie Northfleet, James R. Silkenat and Petar Stoyanov.
Directors Emeritus: President Dr. Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai
Officers: Mark D. Agrast, Vice President; Deborah
Enix-Ross, Vice President; Nancy Ward, Vice
President; William C. Hubbard, Chairman of the
Board; Gerold W. Libby, General Counsel and
Secretary; William H. Neukom, Founder and CEO;
James R. Silkenat, Director and Treasurer.
Executive Director: Elizabeth Andersen
Chief Research Officer: Alejandro Ponce
The WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 report was made
possible by the generous supporters of the work of the
World Justice Project listed in this report on page 203.
© Copyright 2020 by the World Justice Project. The
WJP Rule of Law Index and the World Justice Project
Rule of Law Index are trademarks of the World Justice
Project. All Rights Reserved. Requests to reproduce
this document should be sent to:
WJP Rule of Law Index Permissions
World Justice Project
1025 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20005 USA
E-mail: wjp@worldjusticeproject.org
Subject line: WJP Rule of Law Index Permissions
World Justice Project
Rule of Law Index ®

2020
01
Section One
About the WJP Rule of Law Index

05 Introduction
06 Overview of Scores and Rankings
08 Features of the WJP Rule of Law Index
09 Defining the Rule of Law
11 Conceptual Framework of the WJP Rule of Law Index
12 Indicators of the WJP Rule of Law Index

02
Section Two
Scores and Rankings
16 Rule of Law Around the World
18 Rule of Law by Region
20 Rule of Law by Income
22 Rule of Law by Factor

03
Section Three
Country Profiles
32 How to Read the Country Profiles

04
Section Four
Behind the Numbers

162 Methodology
169 Contributing Experts
201 Acknowledgements
202 About the World Justice Project
The WJP Rule of
Law Index is the
world’s leading
source for original,
independent data
on the rule of law.
Introduction
The World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law
Index® 2020 is the latest report in an annual
series measuring the rule of law based on the
experiences and perceptions of the general
public and in-country legal practitioners and
experts worldwide.
Strengthening the rule of law is a major
goal of citizens, governments, donors,
businesses, and civil society organizations
around the world. To be effective, rule of
law development requires clarity about the
fundamental features that define the rule
of law, as well as an adequate basis for its
evaluation and measurement.
The WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 presents a
portrait of the rule of law in 128 countries
and jurisdictions by providing scores and
rankings based on eight factors: Constraints
on Government Powers, Absence of
Corruption, Open Government, Fundamental
Rights, Order and Security, Regulatory
Enforcement, Civil Justice, and Criminal Justice.
The scores and rankings in the WJP Rule of
Law Index 2020 are derived from more than
130,000 household surveys and 4,000 legal
practitioner and expert surveys worldwide.
The Index is the world’s most comprehensive
dataset of its kind and the only to rely
principally on primary data.
The Index is intended for a broad audience
that includes policy makers, civil society
organizations, academics, citizens, and legal
professionals, among others. It is our hope
that this diagnostic tool will help identify
strengths and weaknesses and encourage
policy choices, guide program development,
and inform research to strengthen the rule
of law within and across these countries and
jurisdictions.
WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 5
Overview of Scores and Rankings
The table below shows the overall scores and rankings of the WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 in alphabetical order.
Scores range from 0 to 1, with 1 indicating the strongest adherence to the rule of law.

Global Global
Overall Score Global Rank Overall Score Global Rank
Country/Jurisdiction Score* Change* Rank Change† Country/Jurisdiction Score* Change* Rank Change†

Afghanistan 0.36 0.02 122 3 Ecuador 0.49 0.01 86 3

Albania 0.50 -0.01 78 4 Egypt 0.36 0.00 125 2
Algeria 0.49 -0.01 83 8 El Salvador 0.49 0.02 84 2
Angola 0.43 0.01 110 4 Estonia 0.81 0.00 10 0
Antigua and Barbuda 0.63 0.00 34 1 Ethiopia 0.41 0.02 114 6
Argentina 0.58 0.00 48 2 Finland 0.87 0.00 3 0
Australia 0.80 0.00 11 0 France 0.73 -0.01 20 3
Austria 0.82 -0.01 8 1 The Gambia 0.50 - 74 -
The Bahamas 0.61 -0.01 41 2 Georgia 0.60 -0.01 42 1
Bangladesh 0.41 -0.01 115 2 Germany 0.84 0.00 6 0
Barbados 0.65 0.00 29 0 Ghana 0.57 -0.01 51 3
Belarus 0.51 0.00 68 1 Greece 0.61 -0.01 40 4
Belgium 0.79 0.00 14 0 Grenada 0.59 -0.01 44 1
Belize 0.48 0.00 89 1 Guatemala 0.45 -0.01 101 3
Benin 0.50 0.00 81 0 Guinea 0.42 -0.02 111 4
Bolivia 0.38 0.00 121 0 Guyana 0.50 0.00 73 3
Bosnia and Honduras 0.40 0.00 116 1
0.52 -0.01 64 2
Herzegovina Hong Kong SAR, China 0.76 0.00 16 0
Botswana 0.60 0.01 43 1 Hungary 0.53 -0.01 60 2
Brazil 0.52 -0.02 67 7 India 0.51 0.00 69 0
Bulgaria 0.55 0.00 53 1 Indonesia 0.53 0.01 59 4
Burkina Faso 0.51 0.00 70 1 Iran 0.43 -0.02 109 3
Cambodia 0.33 0.00 127 0 Italy 0.66 0.00 27 1
Cameroon 0.36 -0.02 124 2 Jamaica 0.57 0.00 49 1
Canada 0.81 0.00 9 0 Japan 0.78 0.00 15 0
Chile 0.67 -0.01 26 1 Jordan 0.57 0.00 50 1
China 0.48 -0.01 88 4 Kazakhstan 0.52 0.00 62 4
Colombia 0.50 0.00 77 5 Kenya 0.45 0.00 102 3
Congo, Dem. Rep. 0.34 0.01 126 0 Kosovo 0.54 - 54 -
Costa Rica 0.68 0.00 25 1 Kyrgyz Republic 0.48 0.01 87 0
Cote d'Ivoire 0.46 0.00 95 0 Lebanon 0.45 -0.02 96 4
Croatia 0.61 0.01 39 3 Liberia 0.45 -0.01 98 1
Czech Republic 0.73 0.00 18 1 Madagascar 0.44 0.01 105 4
Denmark 0.90 0.00 1 0 Malawi 0.52 0.00 65 3
Dominica 0.58 0.00 46 1 Malaysia 0.58 0.03 47 4
Dominican Republic 0.48 0.01 90 7 Mali 0.44 -0.01 106 2

*Scores and change in scores are rounded to two decimal places.

†The change in rankings was calculated by comparing the positions of the 126 countries and jurisdictions measured in the 2019 Index with the rankings
of the same 126 countries and jurisdictions in 2020, exclusive of the two new additions to the 2020 Index. The two new countries and jurisdictions added
to the Index are: Kosovo and The Gambia.

6
 The country scores and rankings for the WJP Rule of Law Index 2020
are derived from more than 130,000 household surveys and 4,000 expert
surveys in 128 countries and jurisdictions.

Global Global
Overall Score Global Rank Overall Score Global Rank
Country/Jurisdiction Score* Change* Rank Change† Country/Jurisdiction Score* Change* Rank Change†

Mauritania 0.36 0.01 123 1 St. Lucia 0.62 0.00 36 2

Mauritius 0.61 0.00 38 1 St. Vincent and the 0.64 0.02 31 4
Grenadines
Mexico 0.44 -0.01 104 3
Suriname 0.50 -0.01 76 5
Moldova 0.50 0.01 82 3
Sweden 0.86 0.00 4 0
Mongolia 0.53 -0.01 57 3
Tanzania 0.47 0.00 93 0
Morocco 0.50 0.00 79 3
Thailand 0.51 0.00 71 6
Mozambique 0.41 -0.01 113 2
Togo 0.45 0.00 99 3
Myanmar 0.42 0.00 112 0
Trinidad and Tobago 0.54 0.00 55 1
Namibia 0.63 0.00 35 1
Tunisia 0.54 0.00 56 3
Nepal 0.53 0.00 61 0
Turkey 0.43 0.00 107 3
Netherlands 0.84 0.00 5 0
Uganda 0.40 -0.01 117 2
New Zealand 0.83 0.00 7 1
Ukraine 0.51 0.00 72 6
Nicaragua 0.39 -0.01 118 2
United Arab
Niger 0.45 0.00 103 0 0.65 0.00 30 2
Emirates
Nigeria 0.43 0.00 108 0
United Kingdom 0.79 -0.01 13 1
North Macedonia 0.53 -0.01 58 1
United States 0.72 0.00 21 1
Norway 0.89 0.00 2 0
Uruguay 0.71 0.00 22 1
Pakistan 0.39 0.00 120 1
Uzbekistan 0.47 0.01 92 4
Panama 0.52 0.00 63 2
Venezuela, RB 0.27 -0.01 128 0
Peru 0.50 -0.01 80 7
Vietnam 0.49 0.00 85 2
Philippines 0.47 0.00 91 0
Zambia 0.45 -0.01 97 3
Poland 0.66 -0.01 28 1
Zimbabwe 0.39 -0.01 119 1
Portugal 0.70 -0.01 23 1
Republic of Korea 0.73 0.00 17 1
Romania 0.63 -0.01 32 1
Russian Federation 0.47 -0.01 94 4
Rwanda 0.62 0.01 37 3
Senegal 0.55 0.00 52 0
Serbia 0.50 0.00 75 5
Sierra Leone 0.45 0.00 100 0
Singapore 0.79 -0.01 12 1
Slovenia 0.69 0.01 24 2
South Africa 0.59 0.01 45 2
Spain 0.73 0.01 19 2
Sri Lanka 0.52 0.00 66 2
St. Kitts and Nevis 0.63 -0.01 33 3

*Scores and change in scores are rounded to two decimal places.

†The change in rankings was calculated by comparing the positions of the 126 countries and jurisdictions measured in the 2019 Index with the rankings
of the same 126 countries and jurisdictions in 2020, exclusive of the two new additions to the 2020 Index. The two new countries and jurisdictions added
to the Index are: Kosovo and The Gambia.

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 7

Features of the WJP Rule of Law Index
The World Justice Project (WJP) developed the WJP Rule of Law Index to serve as a quantitative tool for measuring the rule
of law in practice. The Index’s methodology and comprehensive definition of the rule of law are the products of intensive consultation
and vetting with academics, practitioners, and community leaders from more than 100 countries and jurisdictions and 17
professional disciplines.

The scores and rankings of the eight factors and 44 sub-factors
of the Index draw from two sources of data collected by the WJP:
1. A General Population Poll (GPP) conducted by leading local
polling companies, using a representative sample of 1,000
respondents in each country and jurisdiction;
2. Qualified Respondents’ Questionnaires (QRQs) consisting
of closed-ended questions completed by in-country legal
practitioners, experts, and academics with expertise in civil
and commercial law; constitutional law, civil liberties, and
criminal law; labor law; and public health.2
Taken together, these two data sources provide current, original
information reflecting the experiences and perceptions of the
general public and in-country legal practitioners and experts in
128 countries and jurisdictions worldwide.
New Data Anchored in Actual Experiences
The Index is the only comprehensive set of indicators on the
rule of law that is based on primary data. The Index’s scores are
built from the assessments of residents (1,000 respondents per
1
country or jurisdiction) and local legal practitioners and experts,
which ensure that the findings reflect the conditions experienced
by actual people, including residents from marginalized sectors
of society.
Culturally Competent
The Index has been designed to be applied in countries and
jurisdictions with vastly different social, cultural, economic,
and political systems. No society has ever attained—let alone
sustained—a perfect realization of the rule of law. Every country
faces the perpetual challenge of building and renewing the
structures, institutions, and norms that can support and sustain a
rule of law culture.

Rule of Law in Practice Country-Specific Data and Online Tools

The Index measures adherence to the rule of law by looking at
policy outcomes, such as whether people have access to courts
or whether crime is effectively controlled. This stands in contrast
to efforts that focus on the written legal code, or the institutional
means by which a society may seek to achieve these policy
outcomes.
In addition to this written report, an interactive online platform
for country-specific WJP Rule of Law Index data is available at:
worldjusticeproject.org. The interactive data site invites
viewers to browse each of the 128 country and jurisdiction
profiles and explore overall and factor scores.

Comprehensive and Multi-Dimensional

While other indices cover particular aspects of the rule of law,
such as absence of corruption or human rights, they do not yield
a full picture of the state of the rule of law. The WJP Rule of Law
Index is the only global instrument that looks at the rule of law
comprehensively.

Perspective of Ordinary People

The WJP Rule of Law Index puts people at its core. It looks at a
country’s adherence to the rule of law from the perspective
of ordinary individuals and their experiences with the rule of
law in their societies. The Index examines practical, everyday
situations, such as whether people can access public services and
whether a dispute among neighbors can be resolved peacefully
and cost-effectively by an independent adjudicator.

1
Due to small populations or obstacles to data collection in certain countries and jurisdictions, the sampling plan was adjusted in some cases. One adjustment was to decrease the
sample size. For more information on specific countries and jurisdictions and sample sizes, see pages 166-168.
2
Please see the “Methodology” section on page 162 of this report for more detailed information regarding data collection and score computation.

8
Defining the Rule of Law
Effective rule of law reduces corruption, combats poverty and disease, and protects people from injustices large and small. It is the
foundation for communities of justice, opportunity, and peace—underpinning development, accountable government, and respect for
fundamental rights. Traditionally, the rule of law has been viewed as the domain of lawyers and judges. But everyday issues of safety,
rights, justice, and governance affect us all; everyone is a stakeholder in the rule of law.
Despite its profound importance for fair and functioning
societies, the rule of law is notoriously difficult to define and
measure. A simple way of approaching it is to examine a set of
outcomes that the rule of law brings to societies, each of which
reflects one aspect of the complex concept of the rule of law. The
WJP Rule of Law Index seeks to embody these outcomes within a
simple and coherent framework.
The WJP Rule of Law Index captures adherence to the rule of
law as defined by the WJP’s universal principles (see following
page) through a comprehensive and multi-dimensional set of
outcome indicators, each of which reflects a particular aspect of
this complex concept. The theoretical framework linking these
outcome indicators draws upon two main principles pertaining
to the relationship between the state and the governed.
The first principle measures whether the law imposes limits
on the exercise of power by the state and its agents, as well
as individuals and private entities. This is measured in factors
one, two, three, and four of the Index. The second principle
measures whether the state limits the actions of members of
society and fulfills its basic duties toward its population so that
the public interest is served, people are protected from violence,
and all members of society have access to dispute settlement
and grievance mechanisms. This is measured in factors five,
six, seven, and eight of the Index. Although broad in scope, this
framework assumes very little about the functions of the state,
and when it does, it incorporates functions that are recognized
by practically all societies, such as the provision of justice or the
guarantee of order and security.
The resulting set of indicators is also an effort to strike a balance
between what scholars call a “thin” or minimalist conception
of the rule of law that focuses on formal, procedural rules, and
a “thick” conception that includes substantive characteristics,
such as self-governance and various fundamental rights and
freedoms. Striking this balance between “thin” and “thick”
conceptions of the rule of law enables the Index to apply to
different types of social and political systems, including those
that lack many of the features that characterize democratic
nations, while including sufficient substantive characteristics to
render the rule of law as more than a system of rules. The Index
recognizes that a system of law that fails to respect core human
rights guaranteed under international law is at best “rule by law”
and does not deserve to be called a rule of law system.
The rule of law affects all of us in our everyday lives. Although we
may not be aware of it, the rule of law is profoundly important—
and not just for lawyers or judges. Every sector of society is a
stakeholder in the rule of law. Below are a few examples:
Business Environment
Imagine an investor seeking to commit resources abroad.
She would probably think twice before investing in a country
where corruption is rampant, property rights are ill-defined,
and contracts are difficult to enforce. Uneven enforcement
of regulations, corruption, insecure property rights, and
ineffective means to settle disputes undermine legitimate
business and deter both domestic and foreign investment.
Public Works
Consider the bridges, roads, or runways we traverse daily—or
the offices and buildings in which we live, work, and play. What
would happen if building codes governing design and safety
were not enforced or government officials and contractors
used low-quality materials in order to pocket the surplus? Weak
regulatory enforcement and corruption decrease the security
of physical infrastructure and waste scarce resources, which are
essential to a thriving economy.
Public Health and Environment
Consider the implications of pollution, wildlife poaching, and
deforestation for public health and the environment. What
would happen if a company were pouring harmful chemicals
into a river in a highly populated area and the environmental
inspector ignored these actions in exchange for a bribe?
Adherence to the rule of law is essential to holding governments,
businesses, civil society organizations, and communities
accountable for protecting public health and the environment.
WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 9
 The Four Universal Principles of the Rule of Law
The World Justice Project defines the rule of law as a durable system of laws, institutions, norms, and community
commitment that delivers:

Universal Principle One The government as well as private actors are

Accountability accountable under the law.

The laws are clear, publicized, and stable; are

Universal Principle Two applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights,
Just Laws including the security of persons and contract,
property, and human rights.

Universal Principle Three The processes by which the laws are

Open Government enacted, administered, and enforced are
accessible, fair, and efficient.

Universal Principle Four Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and

Accessible and Impartial independent representatives and neutrals who are
accessible, have adequate resources, and reflect the
Dispute Resolution makeup of the communities they serve.

The four universal principles are further developed in the following

eight factors of the annual WJP Rule of Law Index:
Constraints on Government Powers, Absence of Corruption,
Open Government, Fundamental Rights, Order and Security,
Regulatory Enforcement, Civil Justice, and Criminal Justice.

10
Conceptual Framework of the WJP Rule of Law Index
The conceptual framework of the WJP Rule of Law Index is comprised of eight factors further disaggregated into 44 sub-factors.
These factors and sub-factors are presented below and described in detail in the section that follows.

Factor One 1.1 Government powers are effectively limited by the legislature
Constraints on 1.2 Government powers are effectively limited by the judiciary
1.3 Government powers are effectively limited by independent auditing and review
Government
1.4 Government officials are sanctioned for misconduct
Powers 1.5 Government powers are subject to non-governmental checks
1.6 Transition of power is subject to the law

Factor Two 2.1 Government officials in the executive branch do not use public office for private gain
Absence of 2.2 Government officials in the judicial branch do not use public office for private gain
Corruption 2.3 Government officials in the police and the military do not use public office for private gain
2.4 Government officials in the legislative branch do not use public office for private gain

Factor Three 3.1 Publicized laws and government data

Open 3.2 Right to information
Government 3.3 Civic participation
3.4 Complaint mechanisms

4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination

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

Factor Five
5.1 Crime is effectively controlled
Order and
5.2 Civil conflict is effectively limited
Security 5.3 People do not resort to violence to redress personal grievances

6.1 Government regulations are effectively enforced

Factor Six
6.2 Government regulations are applied and enforced without improper influence
Regulatory
6.3 Administrative proceedings are conducted without unreasonable delay
Enforcement 6.4 Due process is respected in administrative proceedings
6.5 The government does not expropriate without lawful process and adequate compensation

7.1 People can access and afford civil justice

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

8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective

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

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 11

 Informal Justice and the Rule of Law
The conceptual framework of the Index includes a ninth factor on informal justice that is not included in the Index’s
aggregate scores and rankings. Informal justice systems often play a large role in countries where formal legal institutions
are weak, remote, or perceived as ineffective. For this reason, the WJP has devoted significant effort to collecting data on
informal justice through our surveys. Nonetheless, the complexities of these systems and the difficulties of systematically
measuring their fairness and effectiveness make cross-country assessments extraordinarily challenging.

Factor 9: Informal Justice

9.1 Informal justice is timely and effective
9.2 Informal justice is impartial and free of improper influence
9.3 Informal justice respects and protects fundamental rights

Indicators of the WJP Rule of Law Index

Factor 1: Constraints on Government Powers Factor 2: Absence of Corruption

1.1 Government powers are effectively limited by the legislature
Measures whether legislative bodies have the ability in
practice to exercise effective checks on and oversight of the
government.
1.2 Government powers are effectively limited by the judiciary
Measures whether the judiciary has the independence and
the ability in practice to exercise effective checks on the
government.
2.1 Government officials in the executive branch do not use public
office for private gain
Measures the prevalence of bribery, informal payments,
and other inducements in the delivery of public services and
the enforcement of regulations. It also measures whether
government procurement and public works contracts are
awarded through an open and competitive bidding process, and
whether government officials at various levels of the executive
branch refrain from embezzling public funds.

1.3 Government powers are effectively limited by independent
auditing and review
Measures whether comptrollers or auditors, as well as
national human rights ombudsman agencies, have sufficient
independence and the ability to exercise effective checks on
and oversight of the government.
1.4 Government officials are sanctioned for misconduct
Measures whether government officials in the executive,
legislature, judiciary, and the police are investigated,
prosecuted, and punished for official misconduct and other
violations.
1.5 Government powers are subject to non-governmental checks
Measures whether an independent media, civil society
organizations, political parties, and individuals are free to
report and comment on government policies without fear of
retaliation.
1.6 Transition of power is subject to the law
Measures whether government officials are elected or
appointed in accordance with the rules and procedures set
forth in the constitution. Where elections take place, it also
measures the integrity of the electoral process, including access
to the ballot, the absence of intimidation, and public scrutiny of
election results.
2.2 Government officials in the judicial branch do not use public
office for private gain
Measures whether judges and judicial officials refrain from
soliciting and accepting bribes to perform duties or expedite
processes, and whether the judiciary and judicial rulings
are free of improper influence by the government, private
interests, and criminal organizations.
2.3 Government officials in the police and the military do not use
public office for private gain
Measures whether police officers and criminal investigators
refrain from soliciting and accepting bribes to perform
basic police services or to investigate crimes, and whether
government officials in the police and the military are
free of improper influence by private interests or criminal
organizations.
2.4 Government officials in the legislative branch do
not use public office for private gain
Measures whether members of the legislature refrain from
soliciting or accepting bribes or other inducements in exchange
for political favors or favorable votes on legislation.

12
Factor 3: Open Government
3.1 Publicized laws and government data
Measures whether basic laws and information on legal rights
are publicly available, presented in plain language, and made
accessible in all languages. It also measures the quality and
accessibility of information published by the government in
print or online, and whether administrative regulations, drafts
of legislation, and high court decisions are made accessible to
the public in a timely manner.
3.2 Right to information
Measures whether requests for information held by a
government agency are granted, whether these requests are
granted within a reasonable time period, if the information
provided is pertinent and complete, and if requests for
information are granted at a reasonable cost and without
having to pay a bribe. It also measures whether people are
aware of their right to information, and whether relevant
records are accessible to the public upon request.
3.3 Civic participation
Measures the effectiveness of civic participation mechanisms,
including the protection of the freedoms of opinion and
expression, assembly and association, and the right to petition
the government. It also measures whether people can voice
concerns to various government officers, and whether
government officials provide sufficient information and notice
about decisions affecting the community.
3.4 Complaint mechanisms
Measures whether people are able to bring specific complaints
to the government about the provision of public services or the
performance of government officers in carrying out their legal
duties in practice, and how government officials respond to
such complaints.
Factor 4: Fundamental Rights
4.1 Equal treatment and absence of discrimination
Measures whether individuals are free from discrimination—
based on socio-economic status, gender, ethnicity, religion,
national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity—with
respect to public services, employment, court proceedings,
and the justice system.
4.2 The right to life and security of the person is
effectively guaranteed
Measures whether the police inflict physical harm upon
criminal suspects during arrest and interrogation, and
whether political dissidents or members of the media are
subjected to unreasonable searches, arrest, detention,
imprisonment, threats, abusive treatment,
or violence.
4.3 Due process of the law and rights of the accused
Measures whether the basic rights of criminal suspects are
respected, including the presumption of innocence and the
freedom from arbitrary arrest and unreasonable pre-trial
detention. It also measures whether criminal suspects are able to
access and challenge evidence used against them, whether they
are subject to abusive treatment, and whether they are provided
with adequate legal assistance. In addition, it measures whether
the basic rights of prisoners are respected once they have been
convicted of a crime.
4.4 Freedom of opinion and expression is effectively guaranteed
Measures whether an independent media, civil society
organizations, political parties, and individuals are free to
report and comment on government policies without fear of
retaliation.
4.5 Freedom of belief and religion is effectively guaranteed
Measures whether members of religious minorities can
worship and conduct religious practices freely and publicly,
and whether non-adherents are protected from having to
submit to religious laws.
4.6 Freedom from arbitrary interference with privacy
is effectively guaranteed
Measures whether the police or other government officials
conduct physical searches without warrants, or intercept
electronic communications of private individuals without
judicial authorization.
4.7 Freedom of assembly and association is effectively guaranteed
Measures whether people can freely attend community
meetings, join political organizations, hold peaceful public
demonstrations, sign petitions, and express opinions against
government policies and actions without fear of retaliation.
4.8 Fundamental labor rights are effectively guaranteed
Measures the effective enforcement of fundamental labor
rights, including freedom of association and the right to
collective bargaining, the absence of discrimination with
respect to employment, and freedom from forced labor and
child labor.
Factor 5: Order and Security
5.1 Crime is effectively controlled
Measures the prevalence of common crimes, including
homicide, kidnapping, burglary and theft, armed robbery, and
extortion, as well as people’s general perceptions of safety in
their communities.
5.2 Civil conflict is effectively limited
Measures whether people are effectively protected from
armed conflict and terrorism.
5.3 People do not resort to violence to redress personal grievances
Measures whether people resort to intimidation or violence
to resolve civil disputes amongst themselves or to seek
redress from the government, and whether people are free
from mob violence.
WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 13
 Factor 6: Regulatory Enforcement 7.6 Civil justice is effectively enforced
Measures the effectiveness and timeliness of the enforcement
6.1 Government regulations are effectively enforced of civil justice decisions and judgments in practice.
Measures whether government regulations, such as labor,
environmental, public health, commercial, and consumer 7.7 Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are
protection regulations are effectively enforced. accessible, impartial, and effective
Measures whether alternative dispute resolution mechanisms
6.2 Government regulations are applied and enforced without (ADRs) are affordable, efficient, enforceable, and free of
improper influence corruption.
Measures whether the enforcement of regulations is subject
to bribery or improper influence by private interests, and
Factor 8: Criminal Justice
whether public services, such as the issuance of permits and
licenses and the administration of public health services, are
8.1 Criminal investigation system is effective
provided without bribery or other inducements.
Measures whether perpetrators of crimes are effectively
apprehended and charged. It also measures whether police,
6.3 Administrative proceedings are conducted without
investigators, and prosecutors have adequate resources, are
unreasonable delay
free of corruption, and perform their duties competently.
Measures whether administrative proceedings at the national
and local levels are conducted without unreasonable delay.
8.2 Criminal adjudication system is timely and effective
Measures whether perpetrators of crimes are effectively
6.4 Due process is respected in administrative proceedings
prosecuted and punished. It also measures whether criminal
Measures whether the due process of law is respected in
judges and other judicial officers are competent and produce
administrative proceedings conducted by national and local
speedy decisions.
authorities in issue areas such as the environment, taxes, and
labor.
8.3 Correctional system is effective in reducing criminal behavior
Measures whether correctional institutions are secure, respect
6.5 The government does not expropriate without
prisoners’ rights, and are effective in preventing recidivism.
lawful process and adequate compensation
Measures whether the government respects the property
8.4 Criminal justice system is impartial
rights of people and corporations, refrains from the
Measures whether the police and criminal judges are impartial
illegal seizure of private property, and provides adequate
and whether they discriminate in practice based on socio-
compensation when property is legally expropriated.
economic status, gender, ethnicity, religion, national origin,
sexual orientation, or gender identity.
Factor 7: Civil Justice
8.5 Criminal justice system is free of corruption
Measures whether the police, prosecutors, and judges are free
7.1 People can access and afford civil justice
of bribery and improper influence from criminal organizations.
Measures the accessibility and affordability of civil courts,
including whether people are aware of available remedies;
8.6 Criminal justice system is free of improper government influence
can access and afford legal advice and representation; and
Measures whether the criminal justice system is independent
can access the court system without incurring unreasonable
from government or political influence.
fees, encountering unreasonable procedural hurdles, or
experiencing physical or linguistic barriers.
8.7 Due process of the law and rights of the accused
Measures whether the basic rights of criminal suspects are
7.2 Civil justice is free of discrimination
respected, including the presumption of innocence and the
Measures whether the civil justice system discriminates in
freedom from arbitrary arrest and unreasonable pre-trial
practice based on socio-economic status, gender, ethnicity,
detention. It also measures whether criminal suspects are
religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
able to access and challenge evidence used against them,
whether they are subject to abusive treatment, and whether
7.3 Civil justice is free of corruption
they are provided with adequate legal assistance. In addition, it
Measures whether the civil justice system is free of bribery and
measures whether the basic rights of prisoners are respected
improper influence by private interests.
once they have been convicted of a crime.
7.4 Civil justice is free of improper government influence
Measures whether the civil justice system is free of improper
government or political influence.

7.5 Civil justice is not subject to unreasonable delay

Measures whether civil justice proceedings are conducted
and judgments are produced in a timely manner without
unreasonable delay.

14
Scores &
Rankings
 Rule of Law Around the World
The table below shows the overall scores and rankings of the WJP Rule of Law Index
2020 by country rank. Scores range from 0 to 1, with 1 indicating the strongest
adherence to the rule of law.

Adherence to the rule of law

Weaker Stronger
0.0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0

Overall Global Overall Global

Score* Rank Score* Rank

Denmark 0.90 1 Antigua and Barbuda 0.63 34

Norway 0.89 2 Namibia 0.63 35
Finland 0.87 3 St. Lucia 0.62 36
Sweden 0.86 4 Rwanda 0.62 37
Netherlands 0.84 5 Mauritius 0.61 38
Germany 0.84 6 Croatia 0.61 39
New Zealand 0.83 7 Greece 0.61 40
Austria 0.82 8 The Bahamas 0.61 41
Canada 0.81 9 Georgia 0.60 42
Estonia 0.81 10 Botswana 0.60 43
Australia 0.80 11 Grenada 0.59 44
Singapore 0.79 12 South Africa 0.59 45
United Kingdom 0.79 13 Dominica 0.58 46
Belgium 0.79 14 Malaysia 0.58 47
Japan 0.78 15 Argentina 0.58 48
Hong Kong SAR, Jamaica 0.57 49
0.76 16
China Jordan 0.57 50 Overall Global
Republic of Korea 0.73 17 Ghana 0.57 51 Score* Rank

Czech Republic 0.73 18 Senegal 0.55 52 Belarus 0.51 68

Spain 0.73 19 Bulgaria 0.55 53 India 0.51 69
France 0.73 20 Kosovo 0.54 54 Burkina Faso 0.51 70
United States 0.72 21 Trinidad and Tobago 0.54 55 Thailand 0.51 71
Uruguay 0.71 22 Tunisia 0.54 56 Ukraine 0.51 72
Portugal 0.70 23 Mongolia 0.53 57 Guyana 0.50 73
Slovenia 0.69 24 North Macedonia 0.53 58 The Gambia 0.50 74
Costa Rica 0.68 25 Indonesia 0.53 59 Serbia 0.50 75
Chile 0.67 26 Hungary 0.53 60 Suriname 0.50 76
Italy 0.66 27 Nepal 0.53 61 Colombia 0.50 77
Poland 0.66 28 Kazakhstan 0.52 62 Albania 0.50 78
Barbados 0.65 29 Panama 0.52 63 Morocco 0.50 79
United Arab Emirates 0.65 30 Bosnia and Peru 0.50 80
0.52 64
St. Vincent and the Herzegovina Benin 0.50 81
0.64 31
Grenadines Malawi 0.52 65 Moldova 0.50 82
Romania 0.63 32 Sri Lanka 0.52 66 Algeria 0.49 83
St. Kitts and Nevis 0.63 33 Brazil 0.52 67 El Salvador 0.49 84

*Scores are rounded to two decimal places.

16
 Overall Global Overall Global Overall Global
Score* Rank Score* Rank Score* Rank

Vietnam 0.49 85 Guatemala 0.45 101 Uganda 0.40 117

Ecuador 0.49 86 Kenya 0.45 102 Nicaragua 0.39 118
Kyrgyz Republic 0.48 87 Niger 0.45 103 Zimbabwe 0.39 119
China 0.48 88 Mexico 0.44 104 Pakistan 0.39 120
Belize 0.48 89 Madagascar 0.44 105 Bolivia 0.38 121
Dominican Republic 0.48 90 Mali 0.44 106 Afghanistan 0.36 122
Philippines 0.47 91 Turkey 0.43 107 Mauritania 0.36 123
Uzbekistan 0.47 92 Nigeria 0.43 108 Cameroon 0.36 124
Tanzania 0.47 93 Iran 0.43 109 Egypt 0.36 125
Russian Federation 0.47 94 Angola 0.43 110 Congo, Dem. Rep. 0.34 126
Cote d'Ivoire 0.46 95 Guinea 0.42 111 Cambodia 0.33 127
Lebanon 0.45 96 Myanmar 0.42 112 Venezuela, RB 0.27 128
Zambia 0.45 97 Mozambique 0.41 113
Liberia 0.45 98 Ethiopia 0.41 114
Togo 0.45 99 Bangladesh 0.41 115
Sierra Leone 0.45 100 Honduras 0.40 116

*Scores are rounded to two decimal places.

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 17

 Rule of Law Around the World
by Region
East Asia & Pacific
Change in Change
Regional Overall Global Overall in Global
Country/Jurisdiction Rank Score* Rank Score* Rank†
New Zealand 1/15 0.83 7 0.00 1 Indonesia 9/15 0.53 59 0.01 4
Australia 2/15 0.80 11 0.00 0 Thailand 10/15 0.51 71 0.00 6
Singapore 3/15 0.79 12 -0.01 1 Vietnam 11/15 0.49 85 0.00 2
Japan 4/15 0.78 15 0.00 0 China 12/15 0.48 88 -0.01 4
Hong Kong SAR, Philippines 13/15 0.47 91 0.00 0
5/15 0.76 16 0.00 0
China
Myanmar 14/15 0.42 112 0.00 0
Republic of Korea 6/15 0.73 17 0.00 1
Cambodia 15/15 0.33 127 0.00 0
Malaysia 7/15 0.58 47 0.03 4
Mongolia 8/15 0.53 57 -0.01 3

Eastern Europe & Central Asia

Change in Change
Regional Overall Global Overall in Global
Country/Jurisdiction Rank Score* Rank Score* Rank†
Georgia 1/14 0.60 42 -0.01 1 Serbia 8/14 0.50 75 0.00 5
Kosovo 2/14 0.54 54 - Albania 9/14 0.50 78 -0.01 4
North Macedonia 3/14 0.53 58 -0.01 1 Moldova 10/14 0.50 82 0.01 3
Kazakhstan 4/14 0.52 62 0.00 4 Kyrgyz Republic 11/14 0.48 87 0.01 0
Bosnia and Herzegovina 5/14 0.52 64 -0.01 2 Uzbekistan 12/14 0.47 92 0.01 4
Belarus 6/14 0.51 68 0.00 1 Russian Federation 13/14 0.47 94 -0.01 4
Ukraine 7/14 0.51 72 0.00 6 Turkey 14/14 0.43 107 0.00 3

Latin America & Caribbean Change in Change

Regional Overall Global Overall in Global
Country/Jurisdiction Rank Score* Rank Score* Rank†
Uruguay 1/30 0.71 22 0.00 1 Brazil 16/30 0.52 67 -0.02 7
Costa Rica 2/30 0.68 25 0.00 1 Guyana 17/30 0.50 73 0.00 3
Chile 3/30 0.67 26 -0.01 1 Suriname 18/30 0.50 76 -0.01 5
Barbados 4/30 0.65 29 0.00 0 Colombia 19/30 0.50 77 0.00 5
St. Vincent and the Peru 20/30 0.50 80 -0.01 7
Grenadines 5/30 0.64 31 0.02 4
El Salvador 21/30 0.49 84 0.02 2
St. Kitts and Nevis 6/30 0.63 33 -0.01 3 Ecuador 22/30 0.49 86 0.01 3
Antigua and Barbuda 7/30 0.63 34 0.00 1 Belize 23/30 0.48 89 0.00 1
St. Lucia 8/30 0.62 36 0.00 2 Dominican Republic 24/30 0.48 90 0.01 7
The Bahamas 9/30 0.61 41 -0.01 2 Guatemala 25/30 0.45 101 -0.01 3
Grenada 10/30 0.59 44 -0.01 1 Mexico 26/30 0.44 104 -0.01 3
Dominica 11/30 0.58 46 0.00 1 Honduras 27/30 0.40 116 0.00 1
Argentina 12/30 0.58 48 0.00 2 Nicaragua 28/30 0.39 118 -0.01 2
Jamaica 13/30 0.57 49 0.00 1 Bolivia 29/30 0.38 121 0.00 0
Trinidad and Tobago 14/30 0.54 55 0.00 1 Venezuela, RB 30/30 0.27 128 -0.01 0
Panama 15/30 0.52 63 0.00 2

Adherence to the rule of law

Weaker Stronger
0.0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0

†The change in rankings was calculated by comparing the positions of the 126 countries and jurisdictions measured in the 2019 Index with the rankings
of the same 126 countries and jurisdictions in 2020, exclusive of the two new additions to the 2020 Index. The two new countries and jurisdictions added
to the Index are: Kosovo and The Gambia.
*Scores and change in scores are rounded to two decimal places

18
EU, EFTA, & NA (European Union, European Free Trade Association, and North America)
Change in Change
Regional Overall Global Overall in Global
Country/Jurisdiction Rank Score* Rank Score* Rank†
Denmark 1/24 0.90 1 0.00 0 Spain 13/24 0.73 19 0.01 2
Norway 2/24 0.89 2 0.00 0 France 14/24 0.73 20 -0.01 3
Finland 3/24 0.87 3 0.00 0 United States 15/24 0.72 21 0.00 1
Sweden 4/24 0.86 4 0.00 0 Portugal 16/24 0.70 23 -0.01 1
Netherlands 5/24 0.84 5 0.00 0 Slovenia 17/24 0.69 24 0.01 2
Germany 6/24 0.84 6 0.00 0 Italy 18/24 0.66 27 0.00 1
Austria 7/24 0.82 8 -0.01 1 Poland 19/24 0.66 28 -0.01 1
Canada 8/24 0.81 9 0.00 0 Romania 20/24 0.63 32 -0.01 1
Estonia 9/24 0.81 10 0.00 0 Croatia 21/24 0.61 39 0.01 3
United Kingdom 10/24 0.79 13 -0.01 1 Greece 22/24 0.61 40 -0.01 4
Belgium 11/24 0.79 14 0.00 0 Bulgaria 23/24 0.55 53 0.00 1
Czech Republic 12/24 0.73 18 0.00 1 Hungary 24/24 0.53 60 -0.01 2

Middle East & North Africa

Change in Change
Regional Overall Global Overall in Global
Country/Jurisdiction Rank Score* Rank Score* Rank†
United Arab Emirates 1/8 0.65 30 0.00 2 Algeria 5/8 0.49 83 -0.01 8
Jordan 2/8 0.57 50 0.00 1 Lebanon 6/8 0.45 96 -0.02 4
Tunisia 3/8 0.54 56 0.00 3 Iran 7/8 0.43 109 -0.02 3
Morocco 4/8 0.50 79 0.00 3 Egypt 8/8 0.36 125 0.00 2

South Asia
Change in Change
Regional Overall Global Overall in Global
Country/Jurisdiction Rank Score* Rank Score* Rank†
Nepal 1/6 0.53 61 0.00 0 Bangladesh 4/6 0.41 115 -0.01 2
Sri Lanka 2/6 0.52 66 0.00 2 Pakistan 5/6 0.39 120 0.00 1
India 3/6 0.51 69 0.00 0 Afghanistan 6/6 0.36 122 0.02 3

Sub-Saharan Africa Change in Change

Regional Overall Global Overall in Global
Country/Jurisdiction Rank Score* Rank Score* Rank†
Namibia 1/31 0.63 35 0.00 1 Sierra Leone 17/31 0.45 100 0.00 0
Rwanda 2/31 0.62 37 0.01 3 Kenya 18/31 0.45 102 0.00 3
Mauritius 3/31 0.61 38 0.00 1 Niger 19/31 0.45 103 0.00 0
Botswana 4/31 0.60 43 0.01 1 Madagascar 20/31 0.44 105 0.01 4
South Africa 5/31 0.59 45 0.01 2 Mali 21/31 0.44 106 -0.01 2
Ghana 6/31 0.57 51 -0.01 3 Nigeria 22/31 0.43 108 0.00 0
Senegal 7/31 0.55 52 0.00 0 Angola 23/31 0.43 110 0.01 4
Malawi 8/31 0.52 65 0.00 3 Guinea 24/31 0.42 111 -0.02 4
Burkina Faso 9/31 0.51 70 0.00 1 Mozambique 25/31 0.41 113 -0.01 2
The Gambia 10/31 0.50 74 - Ethiopia 26/31 0.41 114 0.02 6
Benin 11/31 0.50 81 0.00 0 Uganda 27/31 0.40 117 -0.01 2
Tanzania 12/31 0.47 93 0.00 0 Zimbabwe 28/31 0.39 119 -0.01 1
Cote d'Ivoire 13/31 0.46 95 0.00 0 Mauritania 29/31 0.36 123 0.01 1
Zambia 14/31 0.45 97 -0.01 3 Cameroon 30/31 0.36 124 -0.02 2
Liberia 15/31 0.45 98 -0.01 1 Congo, Dem. Rep. 31/31 0.34 126 0.01 0
Togo 16/31 0.45 99 0.00 3

Adherence to the rule of law

Weaker Stronger
0.0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0

*Scores are rounded to two decimal places

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 19

 Rule of Law Around the World
by Income
Low Income
Low
Income Overall Global
Country/Jurisdiction Rank Score* Rank

Rwanda 1/19 0.62 37 Niger 11/19 0.45 103

Nepal 2/19 0.53 61 Madagascar 12/19 0.44 105
Malawi 3/19 0.52 65 Mali 13/19 0.44 106
Burkina Faso 4/19 0.51 70 Guinea 14/19 0.42 111
The Gambia 5/19 0.50 74 Mozambique 15/19 0.41 113
Benin 6/19 0.50 81 Ethiopia 16/19 0.41 114
Tanzania 7/19 0.47 93 Uganda 17/19 0.40 117
Liberia 8/19 0.45 98 Afghanistan 18/19 0.36 122
Togo 9/19 0.45 99 Congo, Dem. Rep. 19/19 0.34 126
Sierra Leone 10/19 0.45 100

Lower Middle Income

Lower
Middle
Income Overall Global
Country/Jurisdiction Rank Score* Rank
Ghana 1/30 0.57 51 Zambia 16/30 0.45 97
Senegal 2/30 0.55 52 Kenya 17/30 0.45 102
Tunisia 3/30 0.54 56 Nigeria 18/30 0.43 108
Mongolia 4/30 0.53 57 Angola 19/30 0.43 110
Indonesia 5/30 0.53 59 Myanmar 20/30 0.42 112
India 6/30 0.51 69 Bangladesh 21/30 0.41 115
Ukraine 7/30 0.51 72 Honduras 22/30 0.40 116
Morocco 8/30 0.50 79 Nicaragua 23/30 0.39 118
Moldova 9/30 0.50 82 Zimbabwe 24/30 0.39 119
El Salvador 10/30 0.49 84 Pakistan 25/30 0.39 120
Vietnam 11/30 0.49 85 Bolivia 26/30 0.38 121
Kyrgyz Republic 12/30 0.48 87 Mauritania 27/30 0.36 123
Philippines 13/30 0.47 91 Cameroon 28/30 0.36 124
Uzbekistan 14/30 0.47 92 Egypt 29/30 0.36 125
Cote d'Ivoire 15/30 0.46 95 Cambodia 30/30 0.33 127

Adherence to the rule of law

Weaker Stronger
0.0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0

*Scores are rounded to two decimal places

20
Upper Middle Income Upper
Middle
Income Overall Global
Country/Jurisdiction Rank Score* Rank

Costa Rica 1/42 0.68 25 Brazil 22/42 0.52 67

St. Vincent and the Belarus 23/42 0.51 68
2/42 0.64 31
Grenadines
Thailand 24/42 0.51 71
Romania 3/42 0.63 32
Guyana 25/42 0.50 73
Namibia 4/42 0.63 35
Serbia 26/42 0.50 75
St. Lucia 5/42 0.62 36
Suriname 27/42 0.50 76
Mauritius 6/42 0.61 38
Colombia 28/42 0.50 77
Georgia 7/42 0.60 42
Albania 29/42 0.50 78
Botswana 8/42 0.60 43
Peru 30/42 0.50 80
Grenada 9/42 0.59 44
Algeria 31/42 0.49 83
South Africa 10/42 0.59 45
Ecuador 32/42 0.49 86
Dominica 11/42 0.58 46
China 33/42 0.48 88
Malaysia 12/42 0.58 47
Belize 34/42 0.48 89
Argentina 13/42 0.58 48
Dominican Republic 35/42 0.48 90
Jamaica 14/42 0.57 49
Russian Federation 36/42 0.47 94
Jordan 15/42 0.57 50
Lebanon 37/42 0.45 96
Bulgaria 16/42 0.55 53
Guatemala 38/42 0.45 101
Kosovo 17/42 0.54 54
Mexico 39/42 0.44 104
North Macedonia 18/42 0.53 58
Turkey 40/42 0.43 107
Kazakhstan 19/42 0.52 62
Iran 41/42 0.43 109
Bosnia and
20/42 0.52 64 Venezuela, RB 42/42 0.27 128
Herzegovina
Sri Lanka 21/42 0.52 66

High Income
High
Income Overall Global
Country/Jurisdiction Rank Score* Rank

Denmark 1/37 0.90 1 France 20/37 0.73 20

Norway 2/37 0.89 2 United States 21/37 0.72 21
Finland 3/37 0.87 3 Uruguay 22/37 0.71 22
Sweden 4/37 0.86 4 Portugal 23/37 0.70 23
Netherlands 5/37 0.84 5 Slovenia 24/37 0.69 24
Germany 6/37 0.84 6 Chile 25/37 0.67 26
New Zealand 7/37 0.83 7 Italy 26/37 0.66 27
Austria 8/37 0.82 8 Poland 27/37 0.66 28
Canada 9/37 0.81 9 Barbados 28/37 0.65 29
Estonia 10/37 0.81 10 United Arab Emirates 29/37 0.65 30
Australia 11/37 0.80 11 St. Kitts and Nevis 30/37 0.63 33
Singapore 12/37 0.79 12 Antigua and Barbuda 31/37 0.63 34
United Kingdom 13/37 0.79 13 Croatia 32/37 0.61 39
Belgium 14/37 0.79 14 Greece 33/37 0.61 40
Japan 15/37 0.78 15 The Bahamas 34/37 0.61 41
Hong Kong SAR, Trinidad and Tobago 35/37 0.54 55
16/37 0.76 16
China
Hungary 36/37 0.53 60
Republic of Korea 17/37 0.73 17
Panama 37/37 0.52 63
Czech Republic 18/37 0.73 18
Spain 19/37 0.73 19

Adherence to the rule of law

Weaker Stronger
0.0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0

*Scores are rounded to two decimal places

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 21

 Constraints on Government Powers
Factor 1 measures the extent to which those who govern are bound by law. It comprises the means, both constitutional and
institutional, by which the powers of the government and its officials and agents are limited and held accountable under the law.
It also includes non-governmental checks on the government’s power, such as a free and independent press. For a further breakdown
of Constraints on Government Powers by sub-factor, please refer to page 12.

Factor Factor
Country/Jurisdiction Score* Rank

Denmark 0.94 1 The Gambia 0.60 44 North Macedonia 0.47 87

Norway 0.94 2 Rwanda 0.60 45 Dominican Republic 0.47 88
Finland 0.92 3 Nepal 0.60 46 Mexico 0.46 89
Sweden 0.87 4 Mauritius 0.60 47 Ukraine 0.46 90
Netherlands 0.86 5 Peru 0.60 48 Bulgaria 0.46 91
Germany 0.85 6 St. Lucia 0.59 49 Moldova 0.46 92
New Zealand 0.85 7 Malaysia 0.58 50 Madagascar 0.46 93
Austria 0.85 8 Poland 0.58 51 Zambia 0.46 94
Canada 0.84 9 Grenada 0.58 52 Vietnam 0.45 95
Estonia 0.83 10 Croatia 0.58 53 Albania 0.45 96
Belgium 0.83 11 Senegal 0.56 54 Bosnia and
0.45 97
Australia 0.82 12 Trinidad and Tobago 0.56 55 Herzegovina

United Kingdom 0.82 13 Burkina Faso 0.56 56 Myanmar 0.45 98

Portugal 0.78 14 Malawi 0.56 57 Belize 0.44 99

Costa Rica 0.76 15 Guyana 0.56 58 Afghanistan 0.44 100

Uruguay 0.76 16 United Arab Emirates 0.56 59 Mozambique 0.43 101

Spain 0.74 17 Sri Lanka 0.55 60 Kazakhstan 0.42 102

Czech Republic 0.73 18 Georgia 0.55 61 Angola 0.42 103

France 0.73 19 Panama 0.54 62 Cote d'Ivoire 0.41 104

Chile 0.72 20 Colombia 0.53 63 Uganda 0.40 105

Republic of Korea 0.72 21 Brazil 0.53 64 Niger 0.40 106

United States 0.71 22 Mongolia 0.53 65 Bangladesh 0.40 107

Italy 0.71 23 Dominica 0.53 66 Hungary 0.40 108

Japan 0.71 24 Benin 0.53 67 Guinea 0.39 109

Namibia 0.69 25 Nigeria 0.53 68 Congo, Dem. Rep. 0.39 110

Indonesia 0.68 26 Guatemala 0.52 69 Serbia 0.39 111

Greece 0.68 27 Liberia 0.52 70 Ethiopia 0.39 112

Ghana 0.68 28 Kosovo 0.52 71 Cameroon 0.37 113

Singapore 0.67 29 Tanzania 0.51 72 Iran 0.37 114

Slovenia 0.65 30 Sierra Leone 0.51 73 Russian Federation 0.36 115

Hong Kong SAR, China 0.65 31 Morocco 0.51 74 Bolivia 0.36 116

Jamaica 0.64 32 Philippines 0.50 75 Togo 0.36 117

South Africa 0.63 33 Lebanon 0.50 76 Belarus 0.36 118

Barbados 0.63 34 El Salvador 0.50 77 Honduras 0.34 119

Antigua and Barbuda 0.62 35 Kenya 0.49 78 Uzbekistan 0.33 120

St. Kitts and Nevis 0.62 36 Pakistan 0.49 79 Mauritania 0.33 121

St. Vincent and the Jordan 0.49 80 Zimbabwe 0.33 122

0.62 37
Grenadines Suriname 0.48 81 China 0.32 123
Romania 0.62 38 Thailand 0.48 82 Turkey 0.30 124
Botswana 0.62 39 Algeria 0.48 83 Cambodia 0.29 125
Argentina 0.61 40 Kyrgyz Republic 0.48 84 Egypt 0.27 126
India 0.61 41 Ecuador 0.48 85 Nicaragua 0.26 127
Tunisia 0.61 42 Mali 0.47 86 Venezuela, RB 0.17 128
The Bahamas 0.61 43

Adherence to the rule of law

Weaker Stronger
0.0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0

*Scores are rounded to two decimal places

22
 Absence of Corruption
Factor 2 measures the absence of corruption in government. The factor considers three forms of corruption: bribery, improper
influence by public or private interests, and misappropriation of public funds or other resources. These three forms of corruption are
examined with respect to government officers in the executive branch, the judiciary, the military, police, and the legislature.
For a further breakdown of Absence of Corruption by sub-factor, please refer to page 12.

Factor Factor
Country/Jurisdiction Score* Rank

Denmark 0.95 1 Croatia 0.58 44 Ecuador 0.42 86

Norway 0.94 2 Greece 0.56 45 Malawi 0.41 87
Singapore 0.91 3 Romania 0.56 46 Nepal 0.41 88
Sweden 0.91 4 Jamaica 0.55 47 Uzbekistan 0.40 89
Finland 0.89 5 Belarus 0.54 48 Niger 0.40 90
Netherlands 0.88 6 Senegal 0.54 49 Egypt 0.40 91
New Zealand 0.87 7 Namibia 0.53 50 Indonesia 0.39 92
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.84 8 China 0.53 51 Ghana 0.39 93
Canada 0.83 9 Argentina 0.52 52 Dominican Republic 0.39 94
United Kingdom 0.82 10 Hungary 0.51 53 Colombia 0.39 95
Germany 0.82 11 Thailand 0.49 54 Benin 0.38 96
Austria 0.82 12 Trinidad and Tobago 0.49 55 Zambia 0.38 97
Japan 0.82 13 Tunisia 0.49 56 El Salvador 0.38 98
Australia 0.82 14 Kazakhstan 0.49 57 Mozambique 0.37 99
Belgium 0.80 15 South Africa 0.48 58 Albania 0.37 100
United Arab Emirates 0.80 16 The Gambia 0.48 59 Lebanon 0.36 101
Estonia 0.79 17 Turkey 0.47 60 Bangladesh 0.36 102
France 0.74 18 Sri Lanka 0.47 61 Cote d'Ivoire 0.36 103
United States 0.74 19 Kosovo 0.46 62 Sierra Leone 0.35 104
Poland 0.73 20 Myanmar 0.46 63 Nicaragua 0.34 105
Spain 0.73 21 Philippines 0.46 64 Moldova 0.34 106
Uruguay 0.73 22 Ethiopia 0.46 65 Mali 0.34 107
Portugal 0.72 23 Guyana 0.46 66 Guatemala 0.34 108
St. Vincent and the Algeria 0.45 67 Nigeria 0.33 109
0.70 24
Grenadines Suriname 0.45 68 Ukraine 0.33 110
Barbados 0.70 25 Brazil 0.45 69 Peru 0.33 111
Chile 0.69 26 North Macedonia 0.44 70 Liberia 0.32 112
Georgia 0.68 27 Bulgaria 0.44 71 Kyrgyz Republic 0.32 113
Republic of Korea 0.67 28 Serbia 0.44 72 Honduras 0.32 114
Slovenia 0.66 29 Morocco 0.44 73 Zimbabwe 0.32 115
Costa Rica 0.66 30 Bosnia and Pakistan 0.31 116
0.44 74
Czech Republic 0.65 31 Herzegovina Venezuela, RB 0.31 117
Grenada 0.65 32 Belize 0.43 75 Afghanistan 0.30 118
St. Kitts and Nevis 0.64 33 Iran 0.43 76 Mauritania 0.29 119
St. Lucia 0.64 34 Russian Federation 0.43 77 Guinea 0.29 120
Italy 0.63 35 Togo 0.43 78 Mexico 0.27 121
Rwanda 0.63 36 Angola 0.43 79 Kenya 0.27 122
The Bahamas 0.63 37 Burkina Faso 0.42 80 Madagascar 0.27 123
Antigua and Barbuda 0.61 38 Tanzania 0.42 81 Bolivia 0.27 124
Jordan 0.60 39 Panama 0.42 82 Uganda 0.26 125
Dominica 0.60 40 Mongolia 0.42 83 Cameroon 0.26 126
Malaysia 0.60 41 Vietnam 0.42 84 Cambodia 0.24 127
Botswana 0.59 42 India 0.42 85 Congo, Dem. Rep. 0.16 128
Mauritius 0.59 43

Adherence to the rule of law

Weaker Stronger
0.0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0

*Scores are rounded to two decimal places

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 23

 Open Government
Factor 3 measures the openness of government defined by the extent to which a government shares information, empowers
people with tools to hold the government accountable, and fosters citizen participation in public policy deliberations. This factor
measures whether basic laws and information on legal rights are publicized and evaluates the quality of information published by the
government. For a further breakdown of Open Government by sub-factor, please refer to page 13.

Factor Factor
Country/Jurisdiction Score* Rank

Norway 0.89 1 Kosovo 0.56 44 Morocco 0.44 86

Denmark 0.88 2 Trinidad and Tobago 0.56 45 St. Kitts and Nevis 0.44 87
Sweden 0.86 3 Bulgaria 0.56 46 Senegal 0.43 88
Finland 0.86 4 Peru 0.55 47 Malawi 0.43 89
Netherlands 0.82 5 Moldova 0.55 48 Bolivia 0.43 90
New Zealand 0.82 6 Indonesia 0.55 49 Pakistan 0.43 91
Australia 0.81 7 Mauritius 0.54 50 China 0.43 92
Estonia 0.81 8 Kyrgyz Republic 0.54 51 Bangladesh 0.43 93
Canada 0.81 9 El Salvador 0.53 52 Nigeria 0.43 94
Germany 0.79 10 Dominican Republic 0.53 53 Malaysia 0.42 95
United Kingdom 0.79 11 St. Vincent and the Honduras 0.42 96
0.52 54
France 0.78 12 Grenadines Turkey 0.42 97
United States 0.78 13 Philippines 0.52 55 Jordan 0.42 98
Belgium 0.76 14 Antigua and Barbuda 0.52 56 Benin 0.41 99
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.73 15 Barbados 0.52 57 Afghanistan 0.41 100
Uruguay 0.72 16 Nepal 0.52 58 Lebanon 0.40 101
Austria 0.71 17 Sri Lanka 0.51 59 Uganda 0.40 102
Chile 0.71 18 Guatemala 0.51 60 Sierra Leone 0.40 103
Spain 0.71 19 Thailand 0.51 61 Suriname 0.39 104
Republic of Korea 0.71 20 The Bahamas 0.50 62 Tanzania 0.38 105
Costa Rica 0.70 21 Dominica 0.50 63 Zambia 0.38 106
Japan 0.68 22 Ghana 0.50 64 Cote d'Ivoire 0.38 107
Czech Republic 0.67 23 Ecuador 0.50 65 Nicaragua 0.37 108
Portugal 0.66 24 Botswana 0.50 66 Myanmar 0.37 109
Slovenia 0.65 25 St. Lucia 0.49 67 Angola 0.37 110
Singapore 0.64 26 Tunisia 0.49 68 Guinea 0.37 111
Colombia 0.64 27 Russian Federation 0.49 69 Belarus 0.36 112
Argentina 0.64 28 Mongolia 0.49 70 United Arab Emirates 0.36 113
Italy 0.63 29 North Macedonia 0.48 71 The Gambia 0.36 114
South Africa 0.62 30 Kenya 0.48 72 Mozambique 0.35 115
Brazil 0.61 31 Bosnia and Niger 0.35 116
0.47 73
Herzegovina
India 0.61 32 Algeria 0.34 117
Burkina Faso 0.47 74
Croatia 0.61 33 Congo, Dem. Rep. 0.34 118
Liberia 0.47 75
Greece 0.61 34 Cameroon 0.34 119
Serbia 0.47 76
Romania 0.61 35 Uzbekistan 0.33 120
Albania 0.47 77
Mexico 0.60 36 Ethiopia 0.32 121
Vietnam 0.46 78
Poland 0.60 37 Zimbabwe 0.32 122
Madagascar 0.46 79
Panama 0.59 38 Togo 0.30 123
Hungary 0.46 80
Rwanda 0.58 39 Iran 0.28 124
Kazakhstan 0.46 81
Namibia 0.58 40 Venezuela, RB 0.28 125
Grenada 0.46 82
Georgia 0.57 41 Cambodia 0.27 126
Mali 0.46 83
Ukraine 0.57 42 Mauritania 0.27 127
Guyana 0.45 84
Jamaica 0.56 43 Egypt 0.22 128
Belize 0.45 85

Adherence to the rule of law

Weaker Stronger
0.0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0

*Scores are rounded to two decimal places

24
Fundamental Rights
Factor 4 recognizes that a system of positive law that fails to respect core human rights established under international law is at best
“rule by law,” and does not deserve to be called a rule of law system. Since there are many other indices that address human rights, and
because it would be impossible for the Index to assess adherence to the full range of rights, this factor focuses on a relatively modest
menu of rights that are firmly established under the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and are most closely related
to rule of law concerns. For a further breakdown of Fundamental Rights by sub-factor, please refer to page 13.
Factor Factor
Country/Jurisdiction Score* Rank

Denmark 0.92 1 Grenada 0.63 44 Belize 0.50 87

Norway 0.91 2 Dominica 0.63 45 Lebanon 0.50 88
Finland 0.91 3 Peru 0.62 46 Niger 0.49 89
Sweden 0.87 4 Ghana 0.61 47 Thailand 0.49 90
Germany 0.85 5 Georgia 0.61 48 Jordan 0.48 91
Austria 0.85 6 Ukraine 0.61 49 Madagascar 0.47 92
Netherlands 0.84 7 Bulgaria 0.61 50 Algeria 0.47 93
Belgium 0.84 8 Senegal 0.60 51 Belarus 0.47 94
Canada 0.82 9 Kosovo 0.60 52 Kenya 0.47 95
Estonia 0.82 10 Bosnia and Bolivia 0.46 96
0.59 53
New Zealand 0.81 11 Herzegovina Togo 0.46 97
Australia 0.79 12 Albania 0.59 54 United Arab Emirates 0.46 98
United Kingdom 0.79 13 North Macedonia 0.59 55 Nigeria 0.46 99
Czech Republic 0.79 14 Trinidad and Tobago 0.59 56 Kazakhstan 0.46 100
Costa Rica 0.79 15 Botswana 0.58 57 Vietnam 0.46 101
Spain 0.79 16 Malawi 0.58 58 Cote d'Ivoire 0.45 102
Portugal 0.78 17 Hungary 0.58 59 Morocco 0.45 103
Uruguay 0.78 18 Dominican Republic 0.58 60 Russian Federation 0.44 104
Japan 0.77 19 Mongolia 0.57 61 Tanzania 0.43 105
Slovenia 0.75 20 Serbia 0.57 62 Zambia 0.42 106
France 0.73 21 Tunisia 0.57 63 Philippines 0.41 107
Republic of Korea 0.73 22 Burkina Faso 0.57 64 Afghanistan 0.41 108
Italy 0.73 23 Guyana 0.56 65 Mozambique 0.41 109
Barbados 0.73 24 Suriname 0.55 66 Uzbekistan 0.41 110
Chile 0.72 25 The Gambia 0.55 67 Honduras 0.41 111
United States 0.72 26 Moldova 0.54 68 Congo, Dem. Rep. 0.41 112
St. Vincent and the Benin 0.54 69 Mauritania 0.40 113
0.70 27
Grenadines Guatemala 0.54 70 Angola 0.39 114
Romania 0.70 28 Mali 0.54 71 Pakistan 0.38 115
St. Kitts and Nevis 0.70 29 Sri Lanka 0.54 72 Nicaragua 0.37 116
Argentina 0.70 30 El Salvador 0.54 73 Uganda 0.37 117
Antigua and Barbuda 0.70 31 Colombia 0.53 74 Cameroon 0.36 118
Singapore 0.68 32 Liberia 0.52 75 Cambodia 0.35 119
Croatia 0.67 33 Nepal 0.52 76 Ethiopia 0.35 120
Namibia 0.66 34 Ecuador 0.52 77 Zimbabwe 0.34 121
St. Lucia 0.66 35 Mexico 0.52 78 Bangladesh 0.32 122
The Bahamas 0.66 36 Indonesia 0.52 79 Turkey 0.32 123
Greece 0.65 37 Malaysia 0.52 80 Venezuela, RB 0.31 124
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.65 38 Rwanda 0.51 81 Myanmar 0.31 125
Poland 0.64 39 Kyrgyz Republic 0.51 82 China 0.29 126
Jamaica 0.64 40 Brazil 0.51 83 Egypt 0.28 127
South Africa 0.64 41 India 0.51 84 Iran 0.22 128
Panama 0.64 42 Sierra Leone 0.51 85
Mauritius 0.64 43 Guinea 0.50 86

Adherence to the rule of law

Weaker Stronger
0.0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0

*Scores are rounded to two decimal places

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 25

 Order and Security
Factor 5 measures how well a society ensures the security of persons and property. Security is one of the defining aspects of any rule
of law society and is a fundamental function of the state. It is also a precondition for the realization of the rights and freedoms that the
rule of law seeks to advance. For a further breakdown of Order and Security by sub-factor, please refer to page 13.

Factor Factor
Country/Jurisdiction Score* Rank

Singapore 0.93 1 Vietnam 0.77 44 Chile 0.67 86

Hong Kong SAR, China 0.93 2 Mongolia 0.77 45 Zimbabwe 0.67 87
Denmark 0.93 3 Grenada 0.77 46 Cambodia 0.67 88
Norway 0.93 4 Bosnia and Sierra Leone 0.67 89
0.76 47
Japan 0.92 5 Herzegovina Panama 0.66 90
Sweden 0.92 6 Benin 0.76 48 Russian Federation 0.66 91
United Arab Emirates 0.91 7 Jordan 0.76 49 Lebanon 0.66 92
Finland 0.91 8 Kyrgyz Republic 0.76 50 Honduras 0.66 93
Canada 0.91 9 Mauritius 0.75 51 Myanmar 0.65 94
Austria 0.90 10 Ukraine 0.75 52 Mauritania 0.65 95
Uzbekistan 0.90 11 France 0.75 53 El Salvador 0.65 96
Czech Republic 0.90 12 St. Vincent and the Philippines 0.65 97
0.75 54
Grenadines
Hungary 0.89 13 Suriname 0.65 98
The Bahamas 0.75 55
New Zealand 0.89 14 Niger 0.64 99
Italy 0.75 56
Estonia 0.89 15 Brazil 0.64 100
St. Lucia 0.74 57
Slovenia 0.89 16 Ethiopia 0.63 101
Dominica 0.74 58
Germany 0.89 17 Dominican Republic 0.63 102
Algeria 0.74 59
Australia 0.87 18 Bangladesh 0.63 103
Namibia 0.74 60
Poland 0.86 19 Ecuador 0.63 104
Togo 0.73 61
Netherlands 0.85 20 Peru 0.63 105
Nepal 0.73 62
Croatia 0.85 21 Guyana 0.62 106
Iran 0.73 63
Rwanda 0.84 22 Burkina Faso 0.62 107
Guinea 0.72 64
Republic of Korea 0.84 23 Argentina 0.62 108
Ghana 0.72 65
United Kingdom 0.84 24 Jamaica 0.61 109
Greece 0.71 66
Kosovo 0.84 25 South Africa 0.61 110
Thailand 0.71 67
Romania 0.83 26 Liberia 0.61 111
Botswana 0.71 68
Spain 0.82 27 Angola 0.60 112
The Gambia 0.71 69
United States 0.81 28 Uganda 0.59 113
Sri Lanka 0.71 70
Belgium 0.81 29 India 0.59 114
Madagascar 0.70 71
Belarus 0.80 30 Bolivia 0.59 115
Belize 0.70 72
Moldova 0.80 31 Guatemala 0.59 116
Nicaragua 0.70 73
North Macedonia 0.79 32 Kenya 0.58 117
Uruguay 0.69 74
Barbados 0.79 33 Egypt 0.57 118
Zambia 0.69 75
Malaysia 0.79 34 Colombia 0.56 119
Senegal 0.69 76
Georgia 0.79 35 Mozambique 0.55 120
Turkey 0.69 77
Albania 0.79 36 Mexico 0.53 121
Tanzania 0.69 78
Portugal 0.79 37 Mali 0.51 122
Malawi 0.69 79
Antigua and Barbuda 0.78 38 Venezuela, RB 0.48 123
Tunisia 0.68 80
Kazakhstan 0.78 39 Cameroon 0.48 124
Costa Rica 0.68 81
China 0.78 40 Congo, Dem. Rep. 0.48 125
Indonesia 0.68 82
St. Kitts and Nevis 0.78 41 Pakistan 0.37 126
Morocco 0.68 83
Serbia 0.77 42 Nigeria 0.35 127
Cote d'Ivoire 0.68 84
Bulgaria 0.77 43 Afghanistan 0.29 128
Trinidad and Tobago 0.68 85

Adherence to the rule of law

Weaker Stronger
0.0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0

*Scores are rounded to two decimal places

26
Regulatory Enforcement
Factor 6 measures the extent to which regulations are fairly and effectively implemented and enforced. Regulations, both legal
and administrative, structure behaviors within and outside of the government. This factor does not assess which activities a
government chooses to regulate, nor does it consider how much regulation of a particular activity is appropriate. Rather, it examines
how regulations are implemented and enforced. For a further breakdown of Regulatory Enforcement by sub-factor, please refer to
page 14.
Factor Factor
Country/Jurisdiction Score* Rank

Denmark 0.90 1 Senegal 0.57 44 Myanmar 0.46 87

Norway 0.87 2 South Africa 0.56 45 Iran 0.46 88
Singapore 0.87 3 Morocco 0.56 46 Vietnam 0.45 89
Finland 0.86 4 Grenada 0.56 47 Malawi 0.45 90
New Zealand 0.85 5 Croatia 0.56 48 Mexico 0.45 91
Germany 0.85 6 Indonesia 0.55 49 Lebanon 0.45 92
Netherlands 0.85 7 Ghana 0.55 50 Kenya 0.45 93
Sweden 0.84 8 Jamaica 0.54 51 Tanzania 0.44 94
Austria 0.84 9 Tunisia 0.53 52 Kyrgyz Republic 0.44 95
Australia 0.82 10 Bulgaria 0.53 53 Uzbekistan 0.44 96
Canada 0.81 11 Argentina 0.53 54 Kosovo 0.44 97
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.81 12 Dominica 0.53 55 Albania 0.44 98
United Kingdom 0.81 13 Colombia 0.52 56 Nigeria 0.43 99
Belgium 0.80 14 Cote d'Ivoire 0.52 57 Ukraine 0.43 100
Estonia 0.79 15 El Salvador 0.51 58 Moldova 0.43 101
Japan 0.79 16 Trinidad and Tobago 0.51 59 Liberia 0.43 102
France 0.76 17 Brazil 0.51 60 Belize 0.43 103
United Arab Emirates 0.73 18 Panama 0.51 61 Nicaragua 0.43 104
Republic of Korea 0.72 19 Nepal 0.51 62 Zambia 0.43 105
United States 0.71 20 Belarus 0.51 63 Uganda 0.42 106
Czech Republic 0.71 21 The Bahamas 0.51 64 Guatemala 0.42 107
Spain 0.70 22 Kazakhstan 0.51 65 Dominican Republic 0.42 108
Uruguay 0.70 23 Benin 0.50 66 Cameroon 0.42 109
Costa Rica 0.67 24 China 0.49 67 Turkey 0.41 110
Slovenia 0.65 25 Peru 0.49 68 Bangladesh 0.41 111
Chile 0.64 26 Bosnia and Mozambique 0.40 112
0.49 69
Mauritius 0.63 27 Herzegovina Angola 0.40 113
Portugal 0.62 28 Mali 0.49 70 Bolivia 0.40 114
Poland 0.62 29 Togo 0.49 71 Pakistan 0.39 115
Botswana 0.61 30 Ecuador 0.49 72 Ethiopia 0.39 116
St. Kitts and Nevis 0.61 31 Russian Federation 0.49 73 Honduras 0.39 117
Italy 0.61 32 India 0.49 74 The Gambia 0.38 118
Antigua and Barbuda 0.60 33 Philippines 0.48 75 Sierra Leone 0.37 119
Jordan 0.60 34 North Macedonia 0.48 76 Madagascar 0.37 120
Barbados 0.60 35 Serbia 0.48 77 Afghanistan 0.37 121
St. Lucia 0.60 36 Burkina Faso 0.48 78 Guinea 0.37 122
Rwanda 0.59 37 Sri Lanka 0.47 79 Egypt 0.37 123
Namibia 0.58 38 Niger 0.47 80 Zimbabwe 0.36 124
Greece 0.58 39 Suriname 0.47 81 Congo, Dem. Rep. 0.35 125
Malaysia 0.57 40 Mongolia 0.47 82 Mauritania 0.28 126
Georgia 0.57 41 Thailand 0.47 83 Cambodia 0.27 127
Romania 0.57 42 Guyana 0.47 84 Venezuela, RB 0.20 128
St. Vincent and the Algeria 0.47 85
0.57 43
Grenadines Hungary 0.47 86

Adherence to the rule of law

Weaker Stronger
0.0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0

*Scores are rounded to two decimal places

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 27

 Civil Justice
Factor 7 measures whether ordinary people can resolve their grievances peacefully and effectively through the civil justice system.
It measures whether civil justice systems are accessible and affordable as well as free of discrimination, corruption, and improper
influence by public officials. It examines whether court proceedings are conducted without unreasonable delays and whether
decisions are enforced effectively. It also measures the accessibility, impartiality, and effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution
mechanisms. For a further breakdown of Civil Justice by sub-factor, please refer to page 14.
Factor Factor
Country/Jurisdiction Score* Rank

Denmark 0.86 1 Grenada 0.60 44 Albania 0.48 87

Norway 0.85 2 Argentina 0.59 45 Zambia 0.47 88
Netherlands 0.85 3 Ghana 0.59 46 Vietnam 0.46 89
Germany 0.85 4 Greece 0.59 47 Burkina Faso 0.46 90
Sweden 0.82 5 Dominica 0.59 48 Kenya 0.46 91
Singapore 0.82 6 Trinidad and Tobago 0.58 49 Philippines 0.46 92
Finland 0.81 7 The Bahamas 0.57 50 Kosovo 0.46 93
Estonia 0.80 8 Senegal 0.57 51 Mozambique 0.46 94
Japan 0.79 9 Croatia 0.57 52 Indonesia 0.46 95
New Zealand 0.78 10 Algeria 0.56 53 Hungary 0.45 96
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.77 11 Italy 0.56 54 Dominican Republic 0.45 97
Austria 0.77 12 Malawi 0.56 55 India 0.45 98
Republic of Korea 0.76 13 Bulgaria 0.56 56 Sri Lanka 0.45 99
Australia 0.76 14 North Macedonia 0.55 57 Peru 0.45 100
Belgium 0.76 15 Iran 0.55 58 Zimbabwe 0.45 101
Uruguay 0.74 16 Cote d'Ivoire 0.54 59 Niger 0.45 102
United Kingdom 0.71 17 Morocco 0.54 60 Turkey 0.44 103
France 0.71 18 Ukraine 0.54 61 Angola 0.44 104
Canada 0.70 19 Russian Federation 0.54 62 Sierra Leone 0.44 105
Czech Republic 0.69 20 Brazil 0.54 63 Liberia 0.44 106
St. Kitts and Nevis 0.69 21 China 0.53 64 Madagascar 0.43 107
Portugal 0.68 22 Guyana 0.53 65 Uganda 0.43 108
St. Lucia 0.68 23 El Salvador 0.53 66 Ethiopia 0.42 109
United Arab Emirates 0.68 24 Georgia 0.53 67 Lebanon 0.42 110
Spain 0.67 25 Mongolia 0.53 68 Mali 0.42 111
Namibia 0.67 26 The Gambia 0.52 69 Honduras 0.41 112
Antigua and Barbuda 0.66 27 Jamaica 0.51 70 Benin 0.41 113
Slovenia 0.66 28 Belize 0.51 71 Cameroon 0.41 114
Barbados 0.64 29 Uzbekistan 0.51 72 Guinea 0.41 115
Rwanda 0.64 30 Serbia 0.51 73 Mexico 0.39 116
Mauritius 0.64 31 Tunisia 0.50 74 Egypt 0.39 117
St. Vincent and the Nigeria 0.50 75 Pakistan 0.38 118
0.64 32
Grenadines Tanzania 0.50 76 Bangladesh 0.38 119
Chile 0.63 33 Ecuador 0.49 77 Nicaragua 0.38 120
Poland 0.63 34 Suriname 0.49 78 Guatemala 0.37 121
Malaysia 0.63 35 Colombia 0.49 79 Myanmar 0.37 122
United States 0.62 36 Kyrgyz Republic 0.49 80 Afghanistan 0.37 123
Jordan 0.62 37 Bosnia and Mauritania 0.36 124
0.48 81
Costa Rica 0.62 38 Herzegovina Congo, Dem. Rep. 0.35 125
Romania 0.62 39 Nepal 0.48 82 Bolivia 0.33 126
Kazakhstan 0.62 40 Panama 0.48 83 Venezuela, RB 0.27 127
South Africa 0.61 41 Thailand 0.48 84 Cambodia 0.26 128
Botswana 0.61 42 Togo 0.48 85
Belarus 0.60 43 Moldova 0.48 86

Adherence to the rule of law

Weaker Stronger
0.0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0

*Scores are rounded to two decimal places

28
 Criminal Justice
Factor 8 evaluates a country’s criminal justice system. An effective criminal justice system is a key aspect of the rule of law, as it
constitutes the conventional mechanism to redress grievances and bring action against individuals for offenses against society.
An assessment of the delivery of criminal justice should take into consideration the entire system, including the police, lawyers,
prosecutors, judges, and prison officers. For a further breakdown of Criminal Justice by sub-factor, please refer to page 14.

Factor Factor
Country/Jurisdiction Score* Rank

Norway 0.83 1 South Africa 0.53 44 Iran 0.37 87

Finland 0.83 2 Suriname 0.52 45 Zimbabwe 0.37 88
Denmark 0.83 3 Georgia 0.52 46 Moldova 0.36 89
Sweden 0.80 4 Croatia 0.51 47 Ukraine 0.36 90
Austria 0.80 5 Grenada 0.50 48 Belize 0.36 91
Singapore 0.79 6 Jamaica 0.50 49 Angola 0.36 92
Germany 0.79 7 Greece 0.50 50 Cote d'Ivoire 0.36 93
Netherlands 0.76 8 Ghana 0.49 51 Togo 0.36 94
Japan 0.76 9 Mongolia 0.49 52 Dominican Republic 0.36 95
Canada 0.74 10 Burkina Faso 0.49 53 Madagascar 0.36 96
Australia 0.73 11 Bosnia and Ecuador 0.36 97
0.48 54
United Kingdom 0.72 12 Herzegovina Pakistan 0.35 98
New Zealand 0.72 13 Belarus 0.47 55 Sierra Leone 0.35 99
Hong Kong SAR, China 0.72 14 Kosovo 0.47 56 Lebanon 0.35 100
Estonia 0.71 15 Hungary 0.47 57 Colombia 0.34 101
Czech Republic 0.71 16 Kazakhstan 0.46 58 Ethiopia 0.34 102
Belgium 0.71 17 Malawi 0.46 59 Brazil 0.34 103
Republic of Korea 0.71 18 Vietnam 0.46 60 Bangladesh 0.33 104
United Arab Emirates 0.67 19 Bulgaria 0.45 61 Kyrgyz Republic 0.33 105
Spain 0.67 20 China 0.45 62 Panama 0.33 106
Italy 0.64 21 North Macedonia 0.45 63 Peru 0.33 107
United States 0.63 22 Senegal 0.45 64 Mozambique 0.33 108
France 0.62 23 Sri Lanka 0.44 65 Trinidad and Tobago 0.32 109
The Bahamas 0.61 24 Uzbekistan 0.44 66 Russian Federation 0.31 110
St. Vincent and the Nepal 0.44 67 Liberia 0.31 111
0.61 25
Grenadines Argentina 0.44 68 Philippines 0.31 112
Poland 0.60 26 Algeria 0.43 69 Uganda 0.31 113
Portugal 0.59 27 Thailand 0.43 70 Afghanistan 0.31 114
St. Kitts and Nevis 0.59 28 Benin 0.43 71 Guinea 0.31 115
Botswana 0.59 29 Albania 0.43 72 El Salvador 0.31 116
Barbados 0.57 30 The Gambia 0.42 73 Mauritania 0.30 117
Costa Rica 0.57 31 Tunisia 0.42 74 Guatemala 0.30 118
Jordan 0.57 32 Zambia 0.41 75 Mexico 0.30 119
Uruguay 0.56 33 Nigeria 0.40 76 Mali 0.30 120
Antigua and Barbuda 0.56 34 Serbia 0.40 77 Nicaragua 0.29 121
Slovenia 0.56 35 India 0.40 78 Myanmar 0.27 122
Chile 0.56 36 Indonesia 0.39 79 Honduras 0.26 123
Romania 0.56 37 Kenya 0.38 80 Cambodia 0.26 124
Malaysia 0.56 38 Tanzania 0.38 81 Congo, Dem. Rep. 0.26 125
Namibia 0.55 39 Guyana 0.38 82 Cameroon 0.24 126
Dominica 0.55 40 Morocco 0.38 83 Bolivia 0.22 127
St. Lucia 0.55 41 Niger 0.38 84 Venezuela, RB 0.13 128
Rwanda 0.54 42 Turkey 0.38 85
Mauritius 0.53 43 Egypt 0.37 86

Adherence to the rule of law

Weaker Stronger
0.0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0

*Scores are rounded to two decimal places

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 29

Country
Profiles
 How to Read the Country Profiles
This section presents profiles for the 128 countries and jurisdictions included in the WJP Rule of Law Index® 2020 report.
Each profile presents the featured country’s scores for each of the WJP Rule of Law Index’s factors and sub-factors, and draws
comparisons between the scores of the featured country and the scores of other indexed countries in the same regional and income groups.

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score (strong adherence to rule of law) and 0 signifies the lowest
possible score (weak adherence to rule of law). The country profiles consist of four sections, outlined below.

Displays the country’s overall rule of law score; its

overall regional, income, and global ranks; and its change
in score and rank from the 2019 edition of the Index.
Section 1

Indonesia
Region: East Asia & Paci�c
Indonesia Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.53 9/15 5/30 59/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.01 4 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of

Section 4
Factor Score Regional Income Global Corruption

Section 2
8.1
8.1 2.2
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.68 0.02 5/15 1/30 26/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.39 0.02 14/15 12/30 92/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open

Displays the featured country’s Open Government 0.55 0.01 7/15 4/30 49/128
Justice 7.3
7.3

7.2
7.2
3.3
3.3

3.4
3.4
Government
Presents the individual sub-factor
Fundamental Rights 0.52 0.00 8/15 8/30 79/128

individual factor scores, along scores underlying each of the factors

7.1
7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.68 -0.02 12/15 12/30 82/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3

listed in Section 3 of the country profile.

6.3 4.4

with its regional, income, and

6.3 4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.55 0.00 8/15 3/30 49/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.46 0.02 13/15 17/30 95/128 Order and

global group rankings. The regional, Criminal Justice 0.39 0.02 12/15 10/30 79/128
Security

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score

income, and global rankings are * Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
10 percent level
Low Medium High
2020 Score
Each of the 44 sub-factors is repre-
distributed across three tiers — low, Indonesia East Asia & Paci�c Lower Middle
sented by a gray line drawn from the
Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

medium, and high — as indicated by 1.1 

Limits by legislature
0.80 4.1 
No discrimination
0.39 7.1 
Accessibility & affordability
0.52 center to the periphery of the circle.
the color of the box where the
1.2 
Limits by judiciary
0.68 4.2 
Right to life & security
0.51 7.2 
No discrimination
0.30
The center of the circle corresponds
1.3  0.59 4.3  0.41 7.3  0.40

score is found. 1.4 

Independent auditing
0.61 4.4 
Due process of law
0.68 7.4 
No corruption
0.49
to the worst possible score for each
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5 
Non-governmental checks
0.68 4.5 
Freedom of religion
0.45 7.5 
No unreasonable delay
0.52
sub-factor (0), and the outer edge
of the circle marks the best possible
1.6  0.72 4.6  0.41 7.6  0.40
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.67 7.7  0.57

2.1 
Absence of Corruption

0.48
4.8 
Freedom of association

Labor rights
0.61
Impartial & effective ADRs
score for each sub-factor (1).
In the executive branch
Criminal Justice

2.2  0.32 8.1  0.35

Order and Security
In the judiciary Effective investigations
2.3 
In the police/military
0.51 5.1 
Absence of crime
0.85 8.2 
Timely & effective adjudication
0.52
The featured country’s scores for
2.4  0.27 5.2  0.77 8.3  0.29
In the legislature
5.3 
Absence of civil con�ict
0.43 8.4 
Effective correctional system
0.28
2020 are represented by the purple
Absence of violent redress No discrimination

line. The featured country’s scores

Open Government
8.5  0.47
3.1  0.36
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2 
Right to information
0.55 6.1 
Effective regulatory enforcement
0.56
8.6 

8.7 
No improper gov't in�uence
0.44

0.41
for 2019 are represented by the
gray line.
3.3  0.65 6.2  0.67
Due process of law
Civic participation No improper in�uence
3.4  0.62 6.3  0.52
Complaint mechanisms No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.43
Respect for due process
6.5  0.58
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

88

Section 3

Displays the country’s disaggregated scores for each of

the sub-factors that compose the WJP Rule of Law Index.

The featured country’s score is represented by the

purple bar and labeled at the end of the bar. The average
score of the country’s region is represented by the
orange line. The average score of the country’s income
group is represented by the green line.

32
Afghanistan
Region: South Asia
Afghanistan Income Group: Low

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.36 6/6 18/19 122/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.02 3 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.44 0.00 5/6 12/19 100/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.30 0.03* 6/6 15/19 118/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.41 0.04* 6/6 9/19 100/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.41 0.02 4/6 15/19 108/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.29 -0.01 6/6 19/19 128/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.37 0.02 6/6 17/19 121/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.37 -0.01 6/6 18/19 123/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.31 0.03 6/6 16/19 114/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Afghanistan South Asia Low

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.59 4.1  0.36 7.1  0.49

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.35 4.2  0.29 7.2  0.18
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.45 4.3  0.33 7.3  0.17
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.32 4.4  0.59 7.4  0.31
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.59 4.5  0.41 7.5  0.39
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.34 4.6  0.31 7.6  0.56
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.60 7.7  0.50

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.38
In the executive branch
2.2  0.19
In the judiciary
2.3  0.41
In the police/military
2.4  0.24
In the legislature
4.8  0.41
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.45
Absence of crime
5.2  0.04
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.38
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.31
Effective investigations
8.2  0.41
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.32
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.21

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.24
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.40
Right to information
3.3  0.56
Civic participation
3.4  0.44
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.26
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.30
6.1  0.34
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.33
6.2  0.41
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.48
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.25
Respect for due process
6.5  0.38
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 33

 Albania
Region: Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Albania Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.5 9/14 29/42 78/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -4 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.45 -0.03* 7/14 32/42 96/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.37 0.02 11/14 37/42 100/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.47 0.00 10/14 28/42 77/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.59 -0.02 5/14 17/42 54/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.79 -0.01 7/14 7/42 36/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.44 0.00 11/14 37/42 98/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.48 0.03 12/14 33/42 87/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.43 -0.04 8/14 27/42 72/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Albania Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.48 4.1  0.59 7.1  0.53

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.30
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.55
Independent auditing
1.4  0.39
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.53
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.47
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.71
Right to life & security
4.3  0.53
Due process of law
4.4  0.53
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.79
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.56
Right to privacy
4.7  0.51
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.51
No discrimination
7.3  0.28
No corruption
7.4  0.33
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.53
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.52
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.62

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.39
In the executive branch
2.2  0.32
In the judiciary
2.3  0.52
In the police/military
2.4  0.23
In the legislature
4.8  0.49
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.87
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.49
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.43
Effective investigations
8.2  0.41
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.41
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.55

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.46
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.43
Right to information
3.3  0.44
Civic participation
3.4  0.54
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.33
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.33
6.1  0.44
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.53
6.2  0.45
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.55
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.38
Respect for due process
6.5  0.38
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

34
Algeria
Region: Middle East & North Africa
Algeria Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.49 5/8 31/42 83/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -8 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.48 0.00 6/8 26/42 83/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.45 0.00 4/8 24/42 67/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.34 -0.07 6/8 40/42 117/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.47 -0.01 4/8 35/42 93/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.74 0.02 3/8 19/42 59/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.47 -0.05 5/8 32/42 85/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.56 0.01 3/8 16/42 53/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.43 0.00 3/8 25/42 69/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Algeria Middle East & North Africa Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.51 4.1  0.62 7.1  0.55

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.43
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.60
Independent auditing
1.4  0.50
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.41
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.44
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.56
Right to life & security
4.3  0.54
Due process of law
4.4  0.41
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.16
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.46
Right to privacy
4.7  0.42
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.61
No discrimination
7.3  0.60
No corruption
7.4  0.41
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.73
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.49
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.56

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.40
In the executive branch
2.2  0.54
In the judiciary
2.3  0.49
In the police/military
2.4  0.39
In the legislature
4.8  0.58
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.67
Absence of crime
5.2  0.94
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.61
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.29
Effective investigations
8.2  0.44
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.47
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.62

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.24
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.31
Right to information
3.3  0.38
Civic participation
3.4  0.45
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.44
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.24
6.1  0.42
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.54
6.2  0.52
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.47
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.44
Respect for due process
6.5  0.48
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 35

 Angola
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Angola Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.43 23/31 19/30 110/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.01 4 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.42 0.03 21/31 19/30 103/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.43 0.00 10/31 6/30 79/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.37 0.05 21/31 24/30 110/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.39 0.01 27/31 22/30 114/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.60 0.02* 24/31 23/30 112/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.40 -0.01 23/31 23/30 113/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.44 0.00 20/31 20/30 104/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.36 0.01 18/31 17/30 92/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Angola Sub-Saharan Africa Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.52 4.1  0.50 7.1  0.48

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.40 4.2  0.30 7.2  0.60
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.37 4.3  0.33 7.3  0.50
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.34 4.4  0.43 7.4  0.33
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.43 4.5  0.52 7.5  0.25
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.45 4.6  0.19 7.6  0.31
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.43 7.7  0.63

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.35
In the executive branch
2.2  0.51
In the judiciary
2.3  0.47
In the police/military
2.4  0.37
In the legislature
4.8  0.41
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.48
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.32
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.36
Effective investigations
8.2  0.38
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.25
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.37

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.12
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.40
Right to information
3.3  0.38
Civic participation
3.4  0.56
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.49
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.34
6.1  0.41
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.33
6.2  0.49
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.29
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.46
Respect for due process
6.5  0.36
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

36
Antigua
Antigua and
and Barbuda
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Barbuda Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.63 7/30 31/37 34/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 -1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.62 0.01 6/30 29/37 35/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.61 0.00 10/30 32/37 38/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.52 -0.01 15/30 32/37 56/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.70 0.00 8/30 27/37 31/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.78 0.00 2/30 28/37 38/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.60 0.02 5/30 30/37 33/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.66 0.00 4/30 25/37 27/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.56 0.00 7/30 30/37 34/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Antigua and Barbuda Latin America & Caribbean High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.61 4.1  0.65 7.1  0.75

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.71
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.59
Independent auditing
1.4  0.46
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.60
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.74
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.81
Right to life & security
4.3  0.60
Due process of law
4.4  0.60
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.66
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.68
Right to privacy
4.7  0.72
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.63
No discrimination
7.3  0.79
No corruption
7.4  0.77
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.41
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.47
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.80

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.58
In the executive branch
2.2  0.83
In the judiciary
2.3  0.73
In the police/military
2.4  0.30
In the legislature
4.8  0.86
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.81
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.54
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.50
Effective investigations
8.2  0.56
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.52
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.49

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.29
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.58
Right to information
3.3  0.63
Civic participation
3.4  0.57
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.68
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.57
6.1  0.56
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.60
6.2  0.82
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.46
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.51
Respect for due process
6.5  0.67
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 37

 Argentina
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Argentina Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.58 12/30 13/42 48/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 -2 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.61 -0.01 9/30 8/42 40/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.52 0.00 13/30 16/42 52/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.64 0.01 5/30 3/42 28/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.70 -0.01 7/30 4/42 30/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.62 0.00 24/30 36/42 108/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.53 0.00 11/30 15/42 54/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.59 0.01 10/30 14/42 45/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.44 -0.02 14/30 24/42 68/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Argentina Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.65 4.1  0.65 7.1  0.73

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.46
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.70
Independent auditing
1.4  0.39
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.70
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.79
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.79
Right to life & security
4.3  0.57
Due process of law
4.4  0.70
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.76
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.69
Right to privacy
4.7  0.77
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.70
No discrimination
7.3  0.57
No corruption
7.4  0.52
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.31
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.55
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.77

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.49
In the executive branch
2.2  0.67
In the judiciary
2.3  0.61
In the police/military
2.4  0.30
In the legislature
4.8  0.65
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.56
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.29
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.27
Effective investigations
8.2  0.41
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.35
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.54

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.70
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.53
Right to information
3.3  0.68
Civic participation
3.4  0.63
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.48
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.43
6.1  0.47
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.57
6.2  0.60
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.49
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.50
Respect for due process
6.5  0.58
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

38
Australia
Region: East Asia & Paci�c
Australia Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.8 2/15 11/37 11/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.82 -0.01 2/15 12/37 12/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.82 0.00 5/15 14/37 14/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.81 -0.01 2/15 7/37 7/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.79 0.00 2/15 12/37 12/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.87 0.00 5/15 17/37 18/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.82 0.01 3/15 10/37 10/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.76 -0.01 6/15 14/37 14/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.73 0.00 3/15 11/37 11/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Australia East Asia & Paci�c High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.86 4.1  0.68 7.1  0.60

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.84
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.77
Independent auditing
1.4  0.77
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.79
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.92
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.90
Right to life & security
4.3  0.77
Due process of law
4.4  0.79
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.84
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.84
Right to privacy
4.7  0.82
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.69
No discrimination
7.3  0.88
No corruption
7.4  0.90
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.68
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.74
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.82

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.78
In the executive branch
2.2  0.97
In the judiciary
2.3  0.91
In the police/military
2.4  0.61
In the legislature
4.8  0.72
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.89
Absence of crime
5.2  0.98
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.73
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.66
Effective investigations
8.2  0.71
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.62
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.58

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.91
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.70
Right to information
3.3  0.78
Civic participation
3.4  0.86
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.85
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.92
6.1  0.71
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.77
6.2  0.90
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.77
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.87
Respect for due process
6.5  0.85
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 39

 Austria
Region: EU & EFTA & North America
Austria Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.82 7/24 8/37 8/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.85 0.00 7/24 8/37 8/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.82 -0.02 9/24 12/37 12/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.71 -0.01 13/24 17/37 17/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.85 0.00 6/24 6/37 6/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.90 0.00 6/24 10/37 10/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.84 -0.01 7/24 9/37 9/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.77 -0.01 8/24 12/37 12/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.80 0.00 5/24 5/37 5/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Austria EU & EFTA & North America High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.84 4.1  0.73 7.1  0.72

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.84 4.2  0.97 7.2  0.69
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.78 4.3  0.83 7.3  0.86
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.83 4.4  0.84 7.4  0.87
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.84 4.5  0.82 7.5  0.67
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.94 4.6  0.92 7.6  0.82
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.88 7.7  0.74

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.78
In the executive branch
2.2  0.94
In the judiciary
2.3  0.93
In the police/military
2.4  0.63
In the legislature
4.8  0.82
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.92
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.79
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.65
Effective investigations
8.2  0.81
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.81
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.70

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.71
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.63
Right to information
3.3  0.81
Civic participation
3.4  0.71
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.88
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.92
6.1  0.87
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.83
6.2  0.93
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.72
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.84
Respect for due process
6.5  0.82
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

40
The
The Bahamas
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Bahamas Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.61 9/30 34/37 41/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -2 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.61 0.00 10/30 31/37 43/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.63 -0.02 9/30 31/37 37/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.50 0.00 18/30 34/37 62/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.66 -0.01 10/30 30/37 36/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.75 0.00 6/30 31/37 55/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.51 0.00 18/30 36/37 64/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.57 0.00 13/30 33/37 50/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.61 -0.01 1/30 24/37 24/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

The Bahamas Latin America & Caribbean High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.57 4.1  0.49 7.1  0.62

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.62
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.52
Independent auditing
1.4  0.44
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.69
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.79
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.82
Right to life & security
4.3  0.56
Due process of law
4.4  0.69
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.74
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.52
Right to privacy
4.7  0.78
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.49
No discrimination
7.3  0.66
No corruption
7.4  0.61
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.46
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.44
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.74

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.54
In the executive branch
2.2  0.79
In the judiciary
2.3  0.78
In the police/military
2.4  0.41
In the legislature
4.8  0.64
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.76
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.48
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.50
Effective investigations
8.2  0.55
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.46
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.59

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.31
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.45
Right to information
3.3  0.70
Civic participation
3.4  0.56
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.78
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.86
6.1  0.42
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.56
6.2  0.65
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.40
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.54
Respect for due process
6.5  0.53
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 41

 Bangladesh
Region: South Asia
Bangladesh Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.41 4/6 21/30 115/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -2 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.40 -0.02 6/6 21/30 107/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.36 -0.01 4/6 16/30 102/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.43 -0.01 5/6 17/30 93/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.32 -0.01 6/6 28/30 122/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.63 0.02* 3/6 22/30 103/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.41 -0.01 4/6 22/30 111/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.38 -0.01 5/6 25/30 119/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.33 0.00 5/6 20/30 104/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Bangladesh South Asia Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.54 4.1  0.42 7.1  0.45

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.48
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.37
Independent auditing
1.4  0.37
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.28
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.34
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.19
Right to life & security
4.3  0.28
Due process of law
4.4  0.28
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.50
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.16
Right to privacy
4.7  0.34
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.32
No discrimination
7.3  0.36
No corruption
7.4  0.45
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.20
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.35
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.55

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.41
In the executive branch
2.2  0.35
In the judiciary
2.3  0.30
In the police/military
2.4  0.38
In the legislature
4.8  0.42
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.76
Absence of crime
5.2  0.92
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.20
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.41
Effective investigations
8.2  0.45
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.35
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.23

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.35
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.55
Right to information
3.3  0.33
Civic participation
3.4  0.48
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.35
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.26
6.1  0.46
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.28
6.2  0.42
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.30
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.32
Respect for due process
6.5  0.57
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

42
Barbados
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Barbados Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.65 4/30 28/37 29/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.63 -0.02 5/30 28/37 34/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.70 0.01 3/30 24/37 25/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.52 0.00 16/30 33/37 57/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.73 -0.01 3/30 23/37 24/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.79 0.02 1/30 26/37 33/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.60 -0.03 6/30 31/37 35/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.64 -0.01 5/30 27/37 29/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.57 0.00 4/30 28/37 30/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Barbados Latin America & Caribbean High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.70 4.1  0.62 7.1  0.73

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.71
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.43
Independent auditing
1.4  0.42
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.71
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.80
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.83
Right to life & security
4.3  0.57
Due process of law
4.4  0.71
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.81
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.79
Right to privacy
4.7  0.77
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.67
No discrimination
7.3  0.79
No corruption
7.4  0.75
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.31
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.52
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.72

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.63
In the executive branch
2.2  0.89
In the judiciary
2.3  0.82
In the police/military
2.4  0.45
In the legislature
4.8  0.70
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.89
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.46
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.51
Effective investigations
8.2  0.43
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.56
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.43

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.25
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.52
Right to information
3.3  0.70
Civic participation
3.4  0.61
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.77
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.76
6.1  0.55
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.57
6.2  0.77
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.32
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.67
Respect for due process
6.5  0.69
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 43

 Belarus
Region: Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Belarus Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.51 6/14 23/42 68/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 -1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.36 -0.01 12/14 39/42 118/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.54 -0.01 2/14 13/42 48/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.36 0.00 13/14 39/42 112/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.47 0.00 10/14 36/42 94/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.80 0.00 3/14 3/42 30/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.51 0.00 2/14 19/42 63/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.60 0.00 2/14 12/42 43/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.47 -0.01 3/14 17/42 55/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Belarus Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.27 4.1  0.71 7.1  0.61

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.28
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.50
Independent auditing
1.4  0.54
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.25
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.29
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.62
Right to life & security
4.3  0.43
Due process of law
4.4  0.25
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.61
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.32
Right to privacy
4.7  0.36
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.68
No discrimination
7.3  0.62
No corruption
7.4  0.27
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.83
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.53
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.66

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.45
In the executive branch
2.2  0.73
In the judiciary
2.3  0.66
In the police/military
2.4  0.34
In the legislature
4.8  0.46
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.88
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.53
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.53
Effective investigations
8.2  0.60
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.43
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.61

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.24
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.36
Right to information
3.3  0.33
Civic participation
3.4  0.52
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.56
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.13
6.1  0.64
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.43
6.2  0.57
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.64
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.35
Respect for due process
6.5  0.34
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

44
Belgium
Region: EU & EFTA & North America
Belgium Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.79 11/24 14/37 14/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.83 0.00 10/24 11/37 11/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.80 0.00 10/24 15/37 15/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.76 -0.01 12/24 14/37 14/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.84 0.00 8/24 8/37 8/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.81 -0.01 19/24 25/37 29/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.80 -0.01 10/24 14/37 14/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.76 0.00 9/24 15/37 15/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.71 -0.01 12/24 17/37 17/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Belgium EU & EFTA & North America High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.83 4.1  0.78 7.1  0.72

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.78
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.90
Independent auditing
1.4  0.75
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.80
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.90
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.95
Right to life & security
4.3  0.79
Due process of law
4.4  0.80
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.82
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.90
Right to privacy
4.7  0.85
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.80
No discrimination
7.3  0.83
No corruption
7.4  0.87
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.45
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.82
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.82

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.77
In the executive branch
2.2  0.94
In the judiciary
2.3  0.89
In the police/military
2.4  0.60
In the legislature
4.8  0.81
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.85
Absence of crime
5.2  0.89
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.69
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.58
Effective investigations
8.2  0.67
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.54
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.68

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.70
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.64
Right to information
3.3  0.82
Civic participation
3.4  0.88
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.83
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.86
6.1  0.74
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.79
6.2  0.88
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.68
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.78
Respect for due process
6.5  0.91
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 45

 Belize
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Belize Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.48 23/30 34/42 89/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 -1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.44 -0.02 26/30 34/42 99/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.43 -0.01 18/30 31/42 75/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.45 0.00 24/30 32/42 85/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.50 0.01 26/30 31/42 87/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.70 -0.03 9/30 25/42 72/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.43 0.01 24/30 38/42 103/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.51 0.01 18/30 26/42 71/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.36 0.02 16/30 32/42 91/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Belize Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.50 4.1  0.51 7.1  0.52

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.51
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.26
Independent auditing
1.4  0.24
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.52
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.61
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.58
Right to life & security
4.3  0.38
Due process of law
4.4  0.52
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.54
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.38
Right to privacy
4.7  0.57
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.47
No discrimination
7.3  0.60
No corruption
7.4  0.50
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.47
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.39
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.63

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.38
In the executive branch
2.2  0.60
In the judiciary
2.3  0.52
In the police/military
2.4  0.23
In the legislature
4.8  0.52
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.66
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.44
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.33
Effective investigations
8.2  0.35
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.20
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.38

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.36
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.39
Right to information
3.3  0.52
Civic participation
3.4  0.53
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.48
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.41
6.1  0.44
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.38
6.2  0.56
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.37
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.30
Respect for due process
6.5  0.48
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

46
Benin
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Benin Income Group: Low

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.5 11/31 6/19 81/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.53 -0.02 11/31 6/19 67/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.38 0.00 16/31 10/19 96/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.41 0.02 15/31 8/19 99/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.54 -0.02 10/31 4/19 69/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.76 -0.02 2/31 2/19 48/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.50 0.00 9/31 3/19 66/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.41 0.03 27/31 16/19 113/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.43 -0.01 10/31 5/19 71/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Benin Sub-Saharan Africa Low

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.54 4.1  0.68 7.1  0.41

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.45 4.2  0.48 7.2  0.56
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.42 4.3  0.49 7.3  0.39
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.49 4.4  0.51 7.4  0.33
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.51 4.5  0.77 7.5  0.37
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.77 4.6  0.23 7.6  0.36
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.63 7.7  0.47

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.44
In the executive branch
2.2  0.46
In the judiciary
2.3  0.45
In the police/military
2.4  0.17
In the legislature
4.8  0.57
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.77
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.51
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.37
Effective investigations
8.2  0.38
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.31
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.73

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.29
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.38
Right to information
3.3  0.55
Civic participation
3.4  0.44
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.42
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.32
6.1  0.50
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.49
6.2  0.70
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.36
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.38
Respect for due process
6.5  0.57
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 47

 Bolivia
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Bolivia Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.38 29/30 26/30 121/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.36 0.00 27/30 23/30 116/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.27 0.00 30/30 28/30 124/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.43 0.01 26/30 15/30 90/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.46 0.00 27/30 12/30 96/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.59 0.00 26/30 25/30 115/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.40 0.00 28/30 24/30 114/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.33 -0.02 29/30 29/30 126/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.22 0.02 29/30 30/30 127/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Bolivia Latin America & Caribbean Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.36 4.1  0.40 7.1  0.47

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.28
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.33
Independent auditing
1.4  0.31
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.46
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.45
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.46
Right to life & security
4.3  0.33
Due process of law
4.4  0.46
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.64
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.35
Right to privacy
4.7  0.53
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.33
No discrimination
7.3  0.22
No corruption
7.4  0.20
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.22
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.30
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.56

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.36
In the executive branch
2.2  0.18
In the judiciary
2.3  0.28
In the police/military
2.4  0.23
In the legislature
4.8  0.53
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.58
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.19
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.21
Effective investigations
8.2  0.14
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.17
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.32

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.32
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.42
Right to information
3.3  0.47
Civic participation
3.4  0.51
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.23
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.17
6.1  0.46
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.33
6.2  0.49
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.46
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.19
Respect for due process
6.5  0.42
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

48
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Herzegovina
Region: Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Bosnia and Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.52 5/14 20/42 64/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -2 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.45 0.00 8/14 33/42 97/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.44 0.00 8/14 30/42 74/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.47 0.00 8/14 26/42 73/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.59 0.00 4/14 16/42 53/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.76 0.00 10/14 13/42 47/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.49 0.00 4/14 23/42 69/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.48 -0.03 10/14 31/42 81/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.48 -0.02 2/14 16/42 54/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Bosnia and Herzegovina Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.53 4.1  0.60 7.1  0.57

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.38
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.47
Independent auditing
1.4  0.36
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.44
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.51
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.70
Right to life & security
4.3  0.63
Due process of law
4.4  0.44
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.64
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.52
Right to privacy
4.7  0.55
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.58
No discrimination
7.3  0.47
No corruption
7.4  0.44
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.29
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.32
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.68

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.36
In the executive branch
2.2  0.57
In the judiciary
2.3  0.58
In the police/military
2.4  0.23
In the legislature
4.8  0.64
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.85
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.44
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.42
Effective investigations
8.2  0.56
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.44
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.50

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.45
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.49
Right to information
3.3  0.44
Civic participation
3.4  0.51
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.48
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.33
6.1  0.43
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.63
6.2  0.54
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.41
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.45
Respect for due process
6.5  0.62
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 49

 Botswana
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Botswana Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.6 4/31 8/42 43/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.01 1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.62 0.03 4/31 7/42 39/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.59 -0.01 2/31 9/42 42/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.50 0.01 6/31 22/42 66/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.58 0.01 6/31 19/42 57/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.71 0.00 8/31 23/42 68/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.61 0.01 2/31 3/42 30/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.61 0.01 5/31 11/42 42/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.59 0.02 1/31 2/42 29/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Botswana Sub-Saharan Africa Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.63 4.1  0.65 7.1  0.51

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.62
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.52
Independent auditing
1.4  0.56
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.59
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.77
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.60
Right to life & security
4.3  0.58
Due process of law
4.4  0.59
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.60
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.39
Right to privacy
4.7  0.68
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.60
No discrimination
7.3  0.68
No corruption
7.4  0.65
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.50
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.64
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.68

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.55
In the executive branch
2.2  0.76
In the judiciary
2.3  0.74
In the police/military
2.4  0.32
In the legislature
4.8  0.58
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.66
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.47
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.42
Effective investigations
8.2  0.54
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.61
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.62

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.21
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.54
Right to information
3.3  0.64
Civic participation
3.4  0.60
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.69
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.65
6.1  0.56
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.58
6.2  0.73
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.42
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.62
Respect for due process
6.5  0.72
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

50
Brazil
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Brazil Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.52 16/30 22/42 67/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.02 -7 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.53 -0.03* 18/30 18/42 64/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.45 -0.01 17/30 26/42 69/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.61 -0.01 6/30 5/42 31/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.51 -0.04* 25/30 30/42 83/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.64 -0.01 19/30 31/42 100/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.51 -0.01 16/30 18/42 60/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.54 -0.01 14/30 21/42 63/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.34 -0.01 20/30 37/42 103/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Brazil Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.68 4.1  0.51 7.1  0.63

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.63
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.44
Independent auditing
1.4  0.30
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.54
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.60
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.48
Right to life & security
4.3  0.35
Due process of law
4.4  0.54
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.59
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.52
Right to privacy
4.7  0.61
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.55
No discrimination
7.3  0.67
No corruption
7.4  0.59
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.28
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.41
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.64

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.39
In the executive branch
2.2  0.73
In the judiciary
2.3  0.59
In the police/military
2.4  0.07
In the legislature
4.8  0.47
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.51
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.40
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.28
Effective investigations
8.2  0.27
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.16
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.15

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.71
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.61
Right to information
3.3  0.54
Civic participation
3.4  0.58
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.55
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.59
6.1  0.51
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.35
6.2  0.61
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.30
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.50
Respect for due process
6.5  0.63
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 51

 Bulgaria
Region: EU & EFTA & North America
Bulgaria Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.55 23/24 16/42 53/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.46 0.00 23/24 31/42 91/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.44 0.00 24/24 28/42 71/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.56 0.02 23/24 12/42 46/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.61 0.00 23/24 14/42 50/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.77 0.00 21/24 11/42 43/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.53 -0.01 23/24 14/42 53/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.56 0.00 23/24 17/42 56/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.45 0.00 24/24 20/42 61/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Bulgaria EU & EFTA & North America Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.53 4.1  0.59 7.1  0.69

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.39
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.40
Independent auditing
1.4  0.32
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.61
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.53
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.64
Right to life & security
4.3  0.58
Due process of law
4.4  0.61
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.72
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.40
Right to privacy
4.7  0.67
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.58
No discrimination
7.3  0.50
No corruption
7.4  0.38
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.42
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.65
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.67

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.41
In the executive branch
2.2  0.58
In the judiciary
2.3  0.63
In the police/military
2.4  0.14
In the legislature
4.8  0.63
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.83
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.47
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.37
Effective investigations
8.2  0.57
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.30
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.54

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.56
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.46
Right to information
3.3  0.60
Civic participation
3.4  0.61
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.49
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.33
6.1  0.66
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.58
6.2  0.62
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.55
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.33
Respect for due process
6.5  0.50
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

52
Burkina
Burkina Faso
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Faso Income Group: Low

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.51 9/31 4/19 70/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.56 0.01 9/31 4/19 56/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.42 -0.02 11/31 5/19 80/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.47 0.01 8/31 3/19 74/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.57 -0.01 8/31 2/19 64/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.62 -0.04* 21/31 13/19 107/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.48 0.01 12/31 6/19 78/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.46 0.00 15/31 7/19 90/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.49 0.02 7/31 2/19 53/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Burkina Faso Sub-Saharan Africa Low

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.64 4.1  0.66 7.1  0.38

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.53
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.51
Independent auditing
1.4  0.43
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.61
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.63
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.57
Right to life & security
4.3  0.47
Due process of law
4.4  0.61
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.69
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.36
Right to privacy
4.7  0.66
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.54
No discrimination
7.3  0.38
No corruption
7.4  0.45
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.49
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.39
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.61

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.44
In the executive branch
2.2  0.48
In the judiciary
2.3  0.55
In the police/military
2.4  0.23
In the legislature
4.8  0.52
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.71
Absence of crime
5.2  0.73
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.43
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.41
Effective investigations
8.2  0.52
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.42
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.60

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.30
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.49
Right to information
3.3  0.59
Civic participation
3.4  0.50
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.48
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.52
6.1  0.43
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.47
6.2  0.56
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.40
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.39
Respect for due process
6.5  0.60
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 53

 Cambodia
Region: East Asia & Paci�c
Cambodia Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.33 15/15 30/30 127/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.29 0.00 15/15 28/30 125/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.24 -0.01 15/15 30/30 127/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.27 0.01 15/15 28/30 126/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.35 0.00 13/15 26/30 119/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.67 0.00 13/15 16/30 88/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.27 -0.02 15/15 30/30 127/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.26 0.02 15/15 30/30 128/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.26 0.01 15/15 28/30 124/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Cambodia East Asia & Paci�c Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.39 4.1  0.46 7.1  0.36

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.25
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.23
Independent auditing
1.4  0.27
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.30
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.31
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.22
Right to life & security
4.3  0.27
Due process of law
4.4  0.30
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.48
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.18
Right to privacy
4.7  0.40
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.19
No discrimination
7.3  0.11
No corruption
7.4  0.18
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.27
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.27
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.42

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.27
In the executive branch
2.2  0.14
In the judiciary
2.3  0.23
In the police/military
2.4  0.31
In the legislature
4.8  0.49
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.81
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.19
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.35
Effective investigations
8.2  0.39
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.27
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.23

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.21
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.25
Right to information
3.3  0.34
Civic participation
3.4  0.29
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.17
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.16
6.1  0.24
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.27
6.2  0.24
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.42
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.16
Respect for due process
6.5  0.30
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

54
Cameroon
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Cameroon Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.36 30/31 28/30 124/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.02 -2 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.37 -0.02 28/31 22/30 113/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.26 -0.02 30/31 29/30 126/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.34 -0.01 27/31 25/30 119/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.36 -0.03* 29/31 25/30 118/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.48 -0.05* 29/31 28/30 124/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.42 0.00 21/31 21/30 109/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.41 0.03 28/31 22/30 114/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.24 -0.04 31/31 29/30 126/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Cameroon Sub-Saharan Africa Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.39 4.1  0.45 7.1  0.50

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.30
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.41
Independent auditing
1.4  0.39
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.36
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.37
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.18
Right to life & security
4.3  0.29
Due process of law
4.4  0.36
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.60
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.07
Right to privacy
4.7  0.46
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.41
No discrimination
7.3  0.32
No corruption
7.4  0.26
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.45
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.38
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.57

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.29
In the executive branch
2.2  0.28
In the judiciary
2.3  0.28
In the police/military
2.4  0.18
In the legislature
4.8  0.46
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.61
Absence of crime
5.2  0.53
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.32
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.28
Effective investigations
8.2  0.27
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.15
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.36

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.20
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.35
Right to information
3.3  0.39
Civic participation
3.4  0.41
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.24
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.11
6.1  0.42
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.29
6.2  0.47
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.30
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.40
Respect for due process
6.5  0.49
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 55

 Canada
Region: EU & EFTA & North America
Canada Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.81 8/24 9/37 9/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.84 -0.01 8/24 9/37 9/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.83 0.01 6/24 9/37 9/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.81 0.00 7/24 9/37 9/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.82 -0.01 9/24 9/37 9/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.91 0.00 5/24 9/37 9/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.81 0.00 8/24 11/37 11/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.70 0.00 12/24 19/37 19/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.74 0.01 8/24 10/37 10/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Canada EU & EFTA & North America High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.80 4.1  0.68 7.1  0.58

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.85 4.2  0.94 7.2  0.57
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.80 4.3  0.78 7.3  0.90
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.77 4.4  0.85 7.4  0.89
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.85 4.5  0.82 7.5  0.47
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.95 4.6  0.89 7.6  0.75
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.87 7.7  0.77

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.80
In the executive branch
2.2  0.95
In the judiciary
2.3  0.88
In the police/military
2.4  0.71
In the legislature
4.8  0.73
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.91
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.80
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.69
Effective investigations
8.2  0.67
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.69
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.53

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.88
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.66
Right to information
3.3  0.84
Civic participation
3.4  0.84
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.85
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.96
6.1  0.76
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.78
6.2  0.95
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.71
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.88
Respect for due process
6.5  0.76
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

56
Chile
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Chile Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.67 3/30 25/37 26/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.72 0.00 3/30 19/37 20/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.69 -0.01 4/30 25/37 26/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.71 -0.01 2/30 18/37 18/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.72 -0.01 4/30 24/37 25/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.67 0.00 14/30 36/37 86/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.64 -0.01 3/30 25/37 26/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.63 0.00 7/30 28/37 33/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.56 -0.01 8/30 32/37 36/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Chile Latin America & Caribbean High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.70 4.1  0.55 7.1  0.68

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.58
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.85
Independent auditing
1.4  0.58
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.72
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.89
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.83
Right to life & security
4.3  0.63
Due process of law
4.4  0.72
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.79
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.85
Right to privacy
4.7  0.73
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.62
No discrimination
7.3  0.65
No corruption
7.4  0.68
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.43
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.61
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.75

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.62
In the executive branch
2.2  0.84
In the judiciary
2.3  0.82
In the police/military
2.4  0.48
In the legislature
4.8  0.70
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.75
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.27
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.36
Effective investigations
8.2  0.59
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.34
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.53

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.66
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.75
Right to information
3.3  0.67
Civic participation
3.4  0.77
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.69
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.77
6.1  0.61
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.63
6.2  0.77
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.55
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.52
Respect for due process
6.5  0.77
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 57

 China
Region: East Asia & Paci�c
China Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.48 12/15 33/42 88/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -4 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.32 0.00 14/15 40/42 123/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.53 -0.02 8/15 15/42 51/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.43 0.01 12/15 33/42 92/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.29 -0.03 15/15 41/42 126/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.78 -0.01 8/15 9/42 40/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.49 0.01 9/15 21/42 67/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.53 -0.01 8/15 22/42 64/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.45 -0.02 10/15 21/42 62/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

China East Asia & Paci�c Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.36 4.1  0.46 7.1  0.61

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.30 4.2  0.34 7.2  0.45
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.39 4.3  0.48 7.3  0.42
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.49 4.4  0.14 7.4  0.24
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.14 4.5  0.18 7.5  0.76
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.25 4.6  0.23 7.6  0.59
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.17 7.7  0.66

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.49
In the executive branch
2.2  0.55
In the judiciary
2.3  0.68
In the police/military
2.4  0.41
In the legislature
4.8  0.31
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.80
Absence of crime
5.2  0.92
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.62
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.50
Effective investigations
8.2  0.52
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.51
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.36

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.47
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.56
Right to information
3.3  0.22
Civic participation
3.4  0.45
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.57
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.21
6.1  0.51
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.48
6.2  0.61
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.61
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.34
Respect for due process
6.5  0.39
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

58
Colombia
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Colombia Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.5 19/30 28/42 77/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 5 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.53 0.01 17/30 17/42 63/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.39 0.00 22/30 36/42 95/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.64 0.00 4/30 2/42 27/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.53 0.00 22/30 26/42 74/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.56 -0.02* 28/30 40/42 119/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.52 0.02 13/30 17/42 56/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.49 0.01 21/30 30/42 79/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.34 0.01 19/30 36/42 101/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Colombia Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.61 4.1  0.54 7.1  0.57

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.50
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.49
Independent auditing
1.4  0.42
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.56
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.62
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.50
Right to life & security
4.3  0.43
Due process of law
4.4  0.56
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.63
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.49
Right to privacy
4.7  0.60
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.52
No discrimination
7.3  0.48
No corruption
7.4  0.50
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.20
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.45
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.71

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.42
In the executive branch
2.2  0.52
In the judiciary
2.3  0.53
In the police/military
2.4  0.08
In the legislature
4.8  0.51
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.49
Absence of crime
5.2  0.94
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.26
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.20
Effective investigations
8.2  0.32
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.27
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.31

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.67
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.60
Right to information
3.3  0.56
Civic participation
3.4  0.72
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.42
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.43
6.1  0.51
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.43
6.2  0.64
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.35
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.47
Respect for due process
6.5  0.65
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 59

 Costa Rica
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Costa Rica Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.68 2/30 1/42 25/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 -1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.76 -0.02 1/30 1/42 15/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.66 -0.02 5/30 3/42 30/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.70 0.00 3/30 1/42 21/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.79 0.01 1/30 1/42 15/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.68 -0.01 12/30 27/42 81/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.67 -0.01 2/30 1/42 24/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.62 0.00 8/30 7/42 38/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.57 0.02 5/30 3/42 31/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Costa Rica Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.77 4.1  0.68 7.1  0.68

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.69
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.80
Independent auditing
1.4  0.60
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.83
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.91
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.92
Right to life & security
4.3  0.73
Due process of law
4.4  0.83
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.84
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.82
Right to privacy
4.7  0.85
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.75
No discrimination
7.3  0.72
No corruption
7.4  0.71
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.23
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.48
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.78

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.65
In the executive branch
2.2  0.80
In the judiciary
2.3  0.75
In the police/military
2.4  0.44
In the legislature
4.8  0.64
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.69
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.36
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.41
Effective investigations
8.2  0.46
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.38
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.70

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.47
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.76
Right to information
3.3  0.78
Civic participation
3.4  0.80
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.67
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.67
6.1  0.66
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.73
6.2  0.75
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.45
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.66
Respect for due process
6.5  0.80
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

60
Cote d’Ivoire
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Cote d'Ivoire Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.46 13/31 15/30 95/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.41 0.00 22/31 20/30 104/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.36 -0.01 19/31 17/30 103/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.38 0.01 20/31 21/30 107/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.45 -0.01 21/31 15/30 102/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.68 -0.01 15/31 14/30 84/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.52 0.00 8/31 6/30 57/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.54 0.02 9/31 3/30 59/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.36 -0.02 19/31 18/30 93/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Cote d'Ivoire Sub-Saharan Africa Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.42 4.1  0.60 7.1  0.49

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.36
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.44
Independent auditing
1.4  0.38
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.36
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.49
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.31
Right to life & security
4.3  0.38
Due process of law
4.4  0.36
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.69
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.11
Right to privacy
4.7  0.57
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.63
No discrimination
7.3  0.40
No corruption
7.4  0.30
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.61
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.62
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.71

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.34
In the executive branch
2.2  0.42
In the judiciary
2.3  0.44
In the police/military
2.4  0.24
In the legislature
4.8  0.60
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.66
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.37
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.30
Effective investigations
8.2  0.49
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.29
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.49

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.19
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.46
Right to information
3.3  0.45
Civic participation
3.4  0.42
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.38
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.16
6.1  0.48
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.38
6.2  0.52
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.48
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.54
Respect for due process
6.5  0.59
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 61

 Croatia
Region: EU & EFTA & North America
Croatia Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.61 21/24 32/37 39/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.01 3 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.58 0.00 22/24 33/37 53/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.58 0.01 20/24 33/37 44/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.61 0.00 19/24 27/37 33/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.67 0.02 20/24 29/37 33/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.85 0.02 14/24 20/37 21/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.56 0.01 22/24 33/37 48/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.57 -0.01 21/24 34/37 52/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.51 0.01 21/24 33/37 47/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Croatia EU & EFTA & North America High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.58 4.1  0.62 7.1  0.68

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.47 4.2  0.72 7.2  0.67
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.56 4.3  0.65 7.3  0.58
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.49 4.4  0.63 7.4  0.56
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.63 4.5  0.70 7.5  0.27
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.72 4.6  0.56 7.6  0.50
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.75 7.7  0.74

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.50
In the executive branch
2.2  0.73
In the judiciary
2.3  0.76
In the police/military
2.4  0.33
In the legislature
4.8  0.69
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.95
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.59
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.48
Effective investigations
8.2  0.44
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.49
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.43

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.54
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.61
Right to information
3.3  0.63
Civic participation
3.4  0.65
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.62
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.48
6.1  0.61
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.65
6.2  0.68
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.46
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.42
Respect for due process
6.5  0.62
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

62
Czech
Czech Republic
Region: EU & EFTA & North America
Republic Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.73 12/24 18/37 18/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.73 0.00 14/24 17/37 18/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.65 0.01 18/24 28/37 31/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.67 0.01 15/24 22/37 23/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.79 0.01 12/24 14/37 14/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.90 0.00 7/24 11/37 12/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.71 0.01 14/24 21/37 21/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.69 -0.01 13/24 20/37 20/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.71 0.01 11/24 16/37 16/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Czech Republic EU & EFTA & North America High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.70 4.1  0.71 7.1  0.64

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.72
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.75
Independent auditing
1.4  0.61
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.76
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.85
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.95
Right to life & security
4.3  0.81
Due process of law
4.4  0.76
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.78
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.78
Right to privacy
4.7  0.80
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.74
No discrimination
7.3  0.79
No corruption
7.4  0.75
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.45
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.63
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.82

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.60
In the executive branch
2.2  0.87
In the judiciary
2.3  0.79
In the police/military
2.4  0.36
In the legislature
4.8  0.74
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.89
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.80
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.62
Effective investigations
8.2  0.70
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.60
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.67

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.68
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.63
Right to information
3.3  0.71
Civic participation
3.4  0.67
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.75
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.83
6.1  0.73
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.81
6.2  0.87
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.63
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.60
Respect for due process
6.5  0.73
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 63

 Congo,
Congo, Dem. Rep.
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Dem. Rep. Income Group: Low

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.34 31/31 19/19 126/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.01 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.39 0.07* 26/31 17/19 110/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.16 -0.02 31/31 19/19 128/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.34 0.02 26/31 17/19 118/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.41 0.04* 25/31 17/19 112/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.48 0.00 30/31 18/19 125/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.35 -0.02 30/31 19/19 125/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.35 -0.01 31/31 19/19 125/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.26 -0.02 30/31 19/19 125/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Congo, Dem. Rep. Sub-Saharan Africa Low

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.51 4.1  0.56 7.1  0.35

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.37
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.32
Independent auditing
1.4  0.35
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.39
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.41
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.17
Right to life & security
4.3  0.30
Due process of law
4.4  0.39
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.64
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.19
Right to privacy
4.7  0.50
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.45
No discrimination
7.3  0.16
No corruption
7.4  0.25
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.40
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.31
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.50

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.23
In the executive branch
2.2  0.15
In the judiciary
2.3  0.18
In the police/military
2.4  0.08
In the legislature
4.8  0.50
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.56
Absence of crime
5.2  0.56
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.32
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.21
Effective investigations
8.2  0.35
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.13
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.44

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.19
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.34
Right to information
3.3  0.41
Civic participation
3.4  0.43
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.18
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.19
6.1  0.34
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.30
6.2  0.36
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.36
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.37
Respect for due process
6.5  0.33
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

64
Denmark
Region: EU & EFTA & North America
Denmark Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.9 1/24 1/37 1/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.94 0.00 1/24 1/37 1/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.95 0.00 1/24 1/37 1/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.88 0.02 2/24 2/37 2/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.92 0.00 1/24 1/37 1/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.93 0.00 1/24 3/37 3/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.90 0.00 1/24 1/37 1/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.86 -0.01 1/24 1/37 1/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.83 0.00 3/24 3/37 3/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Denmark EU & EFTA & North America High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.91 4.1  0.79 7.1  0.76

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.95
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.91
Independent auditing
1.4  0.94
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.97
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.99
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.99
Right to life & security
4.3  0.88
Due process of law
4.4  0.97
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.80
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.98
Right to privacy
4.7  0.98
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.90
No discrimination
7.3  0.99
No corruption
7.4  0.92
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.73
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.88
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.85

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.92
In the executive branch
2.2  0.99
In the judiciary
2.3  0.98
In the police/military
2.4  0.89
In the legislature
4.8  0.95
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.95
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.84
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.66
Effective investigations
8.2  0.75
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.78
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.80

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.86
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.84
Right to information
3.3  0.94
Civic participation
3.4  0.87
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.98
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.92
6.1  0.86
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.88
6.2  0.97
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.88
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.88
Respect for due process
6.5  0.90
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 65

 Dominica
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Dominica Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.58 11/30 11/42 46/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 -1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.53 0.00 19/30 19/42 66/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.60 -0.01 11/30 7/42 40/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.50 0.00 19/30 20/42 63/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.63 -0.02 14/30 11/42 45/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.74 -0.02 8/30 18/42 58/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.53 0.01 12/30 16/42 55/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.59 0.00 11/30 15/42 48/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.55 0.00 9/30 8/42 40/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Dominica Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.44 4.1  0.60 7.1  0.76

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.58
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.65
Independent auditing
1.4  0.42
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.53
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.57
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.77
Right to life & security
4.3  0.59
Due process of law
4.4  0.53
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.72
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.61
Right to privacy
4.7  0.61
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.55
No discrimination
7.3  0.76
No corruption
7.4  0.71
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.33
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.35
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.63

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.48
In the executive branch
2.2  0.87
In the judiciary
2.3  0.74
In the police/military
2.4  0.30
In the legislature
4.8  0.57
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.84
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.38
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.49
Effective investigations
8.2  0.46
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.39
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.62

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.38
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.53
Right to information
3.3  0.58
Civic participation
3.4  0.53
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.72
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.58
6.1  0.39
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.59
6.2  0.70
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.45
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.54
Respect for due process
6.5  0.55
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

66
Dominican
Dominican Republic
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Republic Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.48 24/30 35/42 90/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.01 7 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.47 0.01 24/30 29/42 88/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.39 0.01 21/30 35/42 94/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.53 0.02 13/30 15/42 53/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.58 0.02 17/30 20/42 60/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.63 0.00 20/30 32/42 102/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.42 0.02 27/30 40/42 108/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.45 0.02 23/30 35/42 97/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.36 0.02 17/30 33/42 95/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Dominican Republic Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.54 4.1  0.52 7.1  0.53

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.41
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.31
Independent auditing
1.4  0.34
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.63
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.57
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.59
Right to life & security
4.3  0.43
Due process of law
4.4  0.63
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.67
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.53
Right to privacy
4.7  0.68
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.61
No discrimination
7.3  0.44
No corruption
7.4  0.38
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.26
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.38
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.57

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.39
In the executive branch
2.2  0.50
In the judiciary
2.3  0.47
In the police/military
2.4  0.21
In the legislature
4.8  0.59
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.60
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.30
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.33
Effective investigations
8.2  0.37
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.20
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.37

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.35
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.55
Right to information
3.3  0.59
Civic participation
3.4  0.63
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.44
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.34
6.1  0.40
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.43
6.2  0.60
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.39
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.25
Respect for due process
6.5  0.44
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 67

 Ecuador
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Ecuador Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.49 22/30 32/42 86/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.01 3 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.48 0.02 23/30 27/42 85/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.42 0.01 20/30 34/42 86/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.50 -0.01 20/30 21/42 65/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.52 0.03 23/30 27/42 77/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.63 0.00 21/30 33/42 104/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.49 0.00 20/30 24/42 72/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.49 0.01 19/30 28/42 77/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.36 0.01 18/30 34/42 97/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Ecuador Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.54 4.1  0.45 7.1  0.59

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.42 4.2  0.53 7.2  0.49
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.48 4.3  0.42 7.3  0.42
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.40 4.4  0.53 7.4  0.35
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.53 4.5  0.65 7.5  0.44
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.52 4.6  0.42 7.6  0.50
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.58 7.7  0.66

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.43
In the executive branch
2.2  0.42
In the judiciary
2.3  0.55
In the police/military
2.4  0.27
In the legislature
4.8  0.57
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.57
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.30
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.28
Effective investigations
8.2  0.44
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.24
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.33

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.38
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.48
Right to information
3.3  0.52
Civic participation
3.4  0.62
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.47
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.30
6.1  0.52
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.42
6.2  0.59
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.46
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.37
Respect for due process
6.5  0.50
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

68
Egypt
Region: Middle East & North Africa
Egypt Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.36 8/8 29/30 125/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 -2 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.27 -0.03 8/8 29/30 126/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.40 0.00 7/8 11/30 91/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.22 0.00 8/8 30/30 128/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.28 -0.02 7/8 30/30 127/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.57 0.06* 8/8 27/30 118/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.37 0.02 8/8 27/30 123/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.39 0.01 8/8 23/30 117/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.37 -0.03 6/8 13/30 86/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Egypt Middle East & North Africa Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.08 4.1  0.51 7.1  0.50

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.35 4.2  0.20 7.2  0.34
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.32 4.3  0.34 7.3  0.48
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.39 4.4  0.06 7.4  0.39
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.06 4.5  0.26 7.5  0.25
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.39 4.6  0.21 7.6  0.23
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.21 7.7  0.52

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.41
In the executive branch
2.2  0.46
In the judiciary
2.3  0.42
In the police/military
2.4  0.30
In the legislature
4.8  0.42
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.77
Absence of crime
5.2  0.66
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.28
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.40
Effective investigations
8.2  0.41
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.24
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.44

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.33
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.11
Right to information
3.3  0.16
Civic participation
3.4  0.29
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.44
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.37
6.1  0.46
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.34
6.2  0.47
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.17
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.31
Respect for due process
6.5  0.44
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 69

 El
El Salvador
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Salvador Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.49 21/30 10/30 84/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.02 2 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.50 0.03 21/30 10/30 77/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.38 -0.02 23/30 15/30 98/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.53 0.02 12/30 6/30 52/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.54 0.01 21/30 7/30 73/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.65 0.02* 17/30 20/30 96/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.51 0.03 14/30 7/30 58/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.53 0.02 16/30 6/30 66/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.31 0.02 24/30 23/30 116/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

El Salvador Latin America & Caribbean Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.58 4.1  0.52 7.1  0.59

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.48
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.39
Independent auditing
1.4  0.39
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.56
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.59
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.61
Right to life & security
4.3  0.35
Due process of law
4.4  0.56
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.64
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.54
Right to privacy
4.7  0.57
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.61
No discrimination
7.3  0.48
No corruption
7.4  0.46
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.42
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.53
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.64

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.36
In the executive branch
2.2  0.50
In the judiciary
2.3  0.55
In the police/military
2.4  0.11
In the legislature
4.8  0.51
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.51
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.44
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.17
Effective investigations
8.2  0.30
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.19
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.31

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.42
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.59
Right to information
3.3  0.51
Civic participation
3.4  0.61
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.40
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.41
6.1  0.41
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.35
6.2  0.63
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.53
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.42
Respect for due process
6.5  0.58
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

70
Estonia
Region: EU & EFTA & North America
Estonia Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.81 9/24 10/37 10/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.83 0.00 9/24 10/37 10/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.79 -0.01 11/24 17/37 17/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.81 0.01 6/24 8/37 8/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.82 -0.01 10/24 10/37 10/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.89 0.00 9/24 14/37 15/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.79 0.00 11/24 15/37 15/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.80 0.00 7/24 8/37 8/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.71 0.00 10/24 15/37 15/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Estonia EU & EFTA & North America High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.84 4.1  0.80 7.1  0.72

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.82 4.2  0.94 7.2  0.85
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.86 4.3  0.79 7.3  0.89
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.78 4.4  0.79 7.4  0.84
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.79 4.5  0.82 7.5  0.75
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.91 4.6  0.90 7.6  0.70
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.84 7.7  0.89

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.73
In the executive branch
2.2  0.95
In the judiciary
2.3  0.92
In the police/military
2.4  0.57
In the legislature
4.8  0.67
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.90
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.76
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.59
Effective investigations
8.2  0.56
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.63
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.71

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.88
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.75
Right to information
3.3  0.80
Civic participation
3.4  0.81
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.88
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.84
6.1  0.83
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.79
6.2  0.90
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.80
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.66
Respect for due process
6.5  0.78
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 71

 Ethiopia
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Ethiopia Income Group: Low

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.41 26/31 16/19 114/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.02 6 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.39 0.05* 27/31 18/19 112/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.46 -0.01 8/31 3/19 65/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.32 0.04* 28/31 18/19 121/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.35 0.05* 30/31 19/19 120/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.63 -0.01* 20/31 12/19 101/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.39 0.03 24/31 13/19 116/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.42 0.01 25/31 14/19 109/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.34 0.00 23/31 12/19 102/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Ethiopia Sub-Saharan Africa Low

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.51 4.1  0.47 7.1  0.44

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.36
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.40
Independent auditing
1.4  0.42
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.31
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.32
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.25
Right to life & security
4.3  0.33
Due process of law
4.4  0.31
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.51
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.21
Right to privacy
4.7  0.32
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.36
No discrimination
7.3  0.35
No corruption
7.4  0.33
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.39
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.47
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.59

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.42
In the executive branch
2.2  0.40
In the judiciary
2.3  0.45
In the police/military
2.4  0.56
In the legislature
4.8  0.37
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.64
Absence of crime
5.2  0.83
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.44
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.34
Effective investigations
8.2  0.36
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.34
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.33

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.23
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.37
Right to information
3.3  0.29
Civic participation
3.4  0.40
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.41
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.25
6.1  0.35
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.33
6.2  0.53
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.38
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.25
Respect for due process
6.5  0.43
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

72
Finland
Region: EU & EFTA & North America
Finland Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.87 3/24 3/37 3/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.92 0.00 3/24 3/37 3/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.89 0.00 4/24 5/37 5/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.86 -0.01 4/24 4/37 4/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.91 -0.01 3/24 3/37 3/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.91 -0.01 4/24 8/37 8/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.86 0.03 3/24 4/37 4/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.81 0.02 6/24 7/37 7/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.83 -0.01 2/24 2/37 2/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Finland EU & EFTA & North America High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.88 4.1  0.85 7.1  0.70

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.90 4.2  1.00 7.2  0.84
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.92 4.3  0.91 7.3  0.94
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.93 4.4  0.89 7.4  0.90
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.89 4.5  0.83 7.5  0.65
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.98 4.6  0.97 7.6  0.90
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.92 7.7  0.79

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.90
In the executive branch
2.2  0.98
In the judiciary
2.3  0.96
In the police/military
2.4  0.72
In the legislature
4.8  0.87
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.93
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.81
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.60
Effective investigations
8.2  0.77
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.86
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.78

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.90
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.80
Right to information
3.3  0.88
Civic participation
3.4  0.85
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.93
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.97
6.1  0.83
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.91
6.2  0.97
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.80
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.94
Respect for due process
6.5  0.77
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 73

 France
Region: EU & EFTA & North America
France Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.73 14/24 20/37 20/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -3 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.73 -0.02 15/24 18/37 19/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.74 -0.01 12/24 18/37 18/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.78 -0.01 10/24 12/37 12/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.73 -0.01 16/24 20/37 21/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.75 -0.01 22/24 30/37 53/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.76 -0.01 12/24 17/37 17/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.71 0.00 11/24 18/37 18/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.62 -0.01 16/24 23/37 23/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

France EU & EFTA & North America High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.72 4.1  0.65 7.1  0.65

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.67 4.2  0.84 7.2  0.59
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.73 4.3  0.67 7.3  0.76
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.64 4.4  0.71 7.4  0.77
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.71 4.5  0.73 7.5  0.57
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.88 4.6  0.67 7.6  0.74
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.81 7.7  0.85

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.72
In the executive branch
2.2  0.90
In the judiciary
2.3  0.85
In the police/military
2.4  0.48
In the legislature
4.8  0.79
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.82
Absence of crime
5.2  0.89
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.54
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.59
Effective investigations
8.2  0.62
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.55
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.51

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.84
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.73
Right to information
3.3  0.74
Civic participation
3.4  0.82
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.76
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.64
6.1  0.71
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.67
6.2  0.85
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.67
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.76
Respect for due process
6.5  0.83
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

74
The
The Gambia
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Gambia Income Group: Low

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.5 10/31 5/19 74/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
Factor Score Regional Income Global
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
8.1
8.1 2.2
2.2 Corruption
Constraints on 0.5
0.60 0.00 5/31 1/19 44/128 7.7 2.3
Government Powers 7.7 2.3

7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Absence of Corruption 0.48 0.00 7/31 2/19 59/128
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1

7.4
0 3.2
Open Government 0.36 0.00 23/31 14/19 114/128 Civil 7.4 3.2
Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Fundamental Rights 0.55 0.00 9/31 3/19 67/128 7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

7.1
7.1 4.1
4.1
Order and Security 0.71 0.00 9/31 6/19 69/128
6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2

6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
Regulatory Enforcement 0.38 0.00 25/31 14/19 118/128
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1 4.6
Civil Justice 0.52 0.00 10/31 3/19 69/128 6.1
5.3 4.7
4.6
Fundamental
Enforcement 5.3 5.2
5.2 5.1
5.1 4.8
4.8
4.7
Rights
Order and
Criminal Justice 0.42 0.00 11/31 6/19 73/128
Security

* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the

Low Medium High 2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score
2019-2020 Score
10 percent level

The Gambia Sub-Saharan Africa Low

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.71 4.1  0.53 7.1  0.45

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.63
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.36
Independent auditing
1.4  0.50
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.63
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.80
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.39
Right to life & security
4.3  0.43
Due process of law
4.4  0.63
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.75
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.47
Right to privacy
4.7  0.68
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.70
No discrimination
7.3  0.60
No corruption
7.4  0.52
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.36
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.37
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.66

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.42
In the executive branch
2.2  0.59
In the judiciary
2.3  0.51
In the police/military
2.4  0.42
In the legislature
4.8  0.51
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.62
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.51
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.39
Effective investigations
8.2  0.50
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.18
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.30

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.17
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.33
Right to information
3.3  0.59
Civic participation
3.4  0.34
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.57
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.56
6.1  0.37
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.43
6.2  0.49
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.23
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.36
Respect for due process
6.5  0.45
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 75

 Georgia
Region: Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Georgia Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.6 1/14 7/42 42/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.55 -0.02 1/14 16/42 61/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.68 -0.02 1/14 2/42 27/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.57 -0.01 1/14 9/42 41/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.61 -0.01 1/14 13/42 48/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.79 0.00 6/14 6/42 35/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.57 0.01 1/14 8/42 41/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.53 -0.01 6/14 24/42 67/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.52 0.00 1/14 13/42 46/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Georgia Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.58 4.1  0.58 7.1  0.65

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.44
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.59
Independent auditing
1.4  0.42
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.66
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.59
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.73
Right to life & security
4.3  0.59
Due process of law
4.4  0.66
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.63
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.43
Right to privacy
4.7  0.70
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.50
No discrimination
7.3  0.60
No corruption
7.4  0.39
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.36
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.50
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.71

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.60
In the executive branch
2.2  0.73
In the judiciary
2.3  0.89
In the police/military
2.4  0.51
In the legislature
4.8  0.56
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.92
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.44
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.39
Effective investigations
8.2  0.57
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.59
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.50

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.51
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.63
Right to information
3.3  0.61
Civic participation
3.4  0.55
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.73
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.27
6.1  0.55
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.59
6.2  0.80
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.50
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.40
Respect for due process
6.5  0.60
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

76
Germany
Region: EU & EFTA & North America
Germany Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.84 6/24 6/37 6/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.85 0.00 6/24 6/37 6/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.82 0.00 8/24 11/37 11/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.79 0.00 8/24 10/37 10/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.85 0.00 5/24 5/37 5/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.89 0.00 11/24 16/37 17/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.85 0.00 4/24 6/37 6/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.85 -0.01 4/24 4/37 4/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.79 0.01 6/24 7/37 7/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Germany EU & EFTA & North America High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.83 4.1  0.78 7.1  0.79

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.82
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.85
Independent auditing
1.4  0.80
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.85
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.96
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.95
Right to life & security
4.3  0.83
Due process of law
4.4  0.85
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.84
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.81
Right to privacy
4.7  0.90
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.83
No discrimination
7.3  0.88
No corruption
7.4  0.90
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.82
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.89
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.83

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.81
In the executive branch
2.2  0.95
In the judiciary
2.3  0.91
In the police/military
2.4  0.62
In the legislature
4.8  0.85
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.89
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.78
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.60
Effective investigations
8.2  0.77
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.79
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.74

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.75
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.73
Right to information
3.3  0.86
Civic participation
3.4  0.83
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.86
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.92
6.1  0.78
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.83
6.2  0.85
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.83
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.88
Respect for due process
6.5  0.91
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 77

 Ghana
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Ghana Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.57 6/31 1/30 51/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -3 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.68 -0.02 2/31 2/30 28/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.39 -0.01 15/31 13/30 93/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.50 -0.01 5/31 8/30 64/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.61 -0.03 4/31 1/30 47/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.72 0.01 7/31 7/30 65/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.55 0.00 7/31 4/30 50/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.59 -0.02 6/31 1/30 46/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.49 0.00 6/31 1/30 51/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Ghana Sub-Saharan Africa Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.78 4.1  0.60 7.1  0.57

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.67 4.2  0.60 7.2  0.56
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.62 4.3  0.45 7.3  0.54
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.52 4.4  0.74 7.4  0.71
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.74 4.5  0.72 7.5  0.44
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.72 4.6  0.48 7.6  0.58
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.77 7.7  0.75

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.38
In the executive branch
2.2  0.54
In the judiciary
2.3  0.37
In the police/military
2.4  0.27
In the legislature
4.8  0.53
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.77
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.38
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.43
Effective investigations
8.2  0.52
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.37
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.61

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.25
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.42
Right to information
3.3  0.71
Civic participation
3.4  0.64
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.43
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.61
6.1  0.47
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.45
6.2  0.55
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.46
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.60
Respect for due process
6.5  0.67
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

78
Greece
Region: EU & EFTA & North America
Greece Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.61 22/24 33/37 40/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -4 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.68 -0.01 18/24 24/37 27/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.56 0.00 21/24 34/37 45/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.61 0.00 20/24 28/37 34/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.65 -0.01 21/24 31/37 37/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.71 -0.01 24/24 33/37 66/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.58 -0.01 20/24 32/37 39/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.59 0.01 20/24 31/37 47/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.50 -0.01 22/24 34/37 50/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Greece EU & EFTA & North America High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.64 4.1  0.54 7.1  0.64

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.64 4.2  0.77 7.2  0.61
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.71 4.3  0.55 7.3  0.71
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.54 4.4  0.69 7.4  0.61
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.69 4.5  0.72 7.5  0.31
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.86 4.6  0.66 7.6  0.47
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.76 7.7  0.74

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.52
In the executive branch
2.2  0.80
In the judiciary
2.3  0.74
In the police/military
2.4  0.20
In the legislature
4.8  0.55
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.81
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.33
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.50
Effective investigations
8.2  0.47
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.28
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.43

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.57
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.61
Right to information
3.3  0.64
Civic participation
3.4  0.62
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.66
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.60
6.1  0.63
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.55
6.2  0.62
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.50
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.44
Respect for due process
6.5  0.70
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 79

 Grenada
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Grenada Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.59 10/30 9/42 44/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.58 -0.01 13/30 13/42 52/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.65 -0.02 6/30 4/42 32/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.46 -0.01 22/30 30/42 82/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.63 0.00 13/30 10/42 44/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.77 0.00 4/30 12/42 46/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.56 -0.02 9/30 12/42 47/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.60 -0.02 9/30 13/42 44/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.50 0.00 12/30 14/42 48/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Grenada Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.57 4.1  0.70 7.1  0.56

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.66
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.49
Independent auditing
1.4  0.43
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.62
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.69
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.70
Right to life & security
4.3  0.43
Due process of law
4.4  0.62
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.66
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.47
Right to privacy
4.7  0.76
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.72
No discrimination
7.3  0.80
No corruption
7.4  0.72
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.36
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.30
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.73

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.60
In the executive branch
2.2  0.79
In the judiciary
2.3  0.74
In the police/military
2.4  0.46
In the legislature
4.8  0.67
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.88
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.42
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.48
Effective investigations
8.2  0.53
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.39
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.47

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.29
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.37
Right to information
3.3  0.64
Civic participation
3.4  0.52
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.65
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.57
6.1  0.50
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.43
6.2  0.75
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.58
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.39
Respect for due process
6.5  0.57
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

80
Guatemala
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Guatemala Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.45 25/30 38/42 101/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -3 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.52 -0.02* 20/30 20/42 69/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.34 -0.03* 25/30 39/42 108/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.51 0.00 17/30 18/42 60/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.54 -0.01 20/30 24/42 70/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.59 0.00 27/30 39/42 116/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.42 0.00 26/30 39/42 107/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.37 0.00 28/30 41/42 121/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.30 -0.02 25/30 40/42 118/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Guatemala Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.61 4.1  0.43 7.1  0.35

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.51
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.40
Independent auditing
1.4  0.36
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.62
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.63
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.61
Right to life & security
4.3  0.39
Due process of law
4.4  0.62
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.64
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.61
Right to privacy
4.7  0.66
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.39
No discrimination
7.3  0.46
No corruption
7.4  0.36
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.14
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.30
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.62

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.33
In the executive branch
2.2  0.45
In the judiciary
2.3  0.50
In the police/military
2.4  0.06
In the legislature
4.8  0.40
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.54
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.23
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.21
Effective investigations
8.2  0.24
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.08
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.37

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.30
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.52
Right to information
3.3  0.58
Civic participation
3.4  0.63
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.43
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.39
6.1  0.40
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.39
6.2  0.58
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.37
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.29
Respect for due process
6.5  0.46
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 81

 Guinea
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Guinea Income Group: Low

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.42 24/31 14/19 111/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.02 -4 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.39 0.00 25/31 16/19 109/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.29 0.00 26/31 16/19 120/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.37 -0.02 22/31 13/19 111/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.50 -0.02 15/31 10/19 86/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.72 -0.03 6/31 5/19 64/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.37 -0.06 28/31 18/19 122/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.41 0.00 29/31 17/19 115/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.31 0.00 27/31 17/19 115/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Guinea Sub-Saharan Africa Low

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.46 4.1  0.59 7.1  0.46

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.30 4.2  0.45 7.2  0.58
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.33 4.3  0.35 7.3  0.15
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.29 4.4  0.51 7.4  0.27
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.51 4.5  0.70 7.5  0.46
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.47 4.6  0.27 7.6  0.40
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.61 7.7  0.55

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.26
In the executive branch
2.2  0.29
In the judiciary
2.3  0.34
In the police/military
2.4  0.25
In the legislature
4.8  0.53
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.73
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.42
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.23
Effective investigations
8.2  0.28
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.19
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.55

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.17
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.33
Right to information
3.3  0.51
Civic participation
3.4  0.45
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.30
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.25
6.1  0.36
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.35
6.2  0.38
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.37
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.36
Respect for due process
6.5  0.38
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

82
Guyana
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Guyana Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.5 17/30 25/42 73/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 3 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.56 -0.01 15/30 14/42 58/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.46 -0.01 15/30 23/42 66/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.45 0.01 23/30 31/42 84/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.56 0.00 18/30 22/42 65/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.62 0.01 23/30 35/42 106/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.47 0.00 22/30 31/42 84/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.53 0.00 15/30 23/42 65/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.38 0.00 15/30 29/42 82/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Guyana Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.62 4.1  0.54 7.1  0.56

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.61
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.46
Independent auditing
1.4  0.41
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.61
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.64
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.56
Right to life & security
4.3  0.36
Due process of law
4.4  0.61
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.72
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.46
Right to privacy
4.7  0.62
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.43
No discrimination
7.3  0.61
No corruption
7.4  0.54
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.47
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.54
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.59

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.42
In the executive branch
2.2  0.60
In the judiciary
2.3  0.42
In the police/military
2.4  0.37
In the legislature
4.8  0.59
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.65
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.22
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.34
Effective investigations
8.2  0.40
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.15
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.34

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.27
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.45
Right to information
3.3  0.57
Civic participation
3.4  0.52
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.52
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.54
6.1  0.49
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.36
6.2  0.62
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.38
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.37
Respect for due process
6.5  0.46
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 83

 Honduras
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Honduras Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.4 27/30 22/30 116/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.34 -0.03 28/30 24/30 119/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.32 -0.01 27/30 23/30 114/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.42 0.00 27/30 19/30 96/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.41 0.00 28/30 20/30 111/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.66 0.05* 16/30 17/30 93/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.39 -0.01 29/30 26/30 117/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.41 0.00 25/30 21/30 112/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.26 0.01 28/30 27/30 123/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Honduras Latin America & Caribbean Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.44 4.1  0.46 7.1  0.45

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.33
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.28
Independent auditing
1.4  0.25
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.46
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.29
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.29
Right to life & security
4.3  0.33
Due process of law
4.4  0.46
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.55
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.17
Right to privacy
4.7  0.51
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.42
No discrimination
7.3  0.38
No corruption
7.4  0.27
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.27
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.45
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.67

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.34
In the executive branch
2.2  0.39
In the judiciary
2.3  0.48
In the police/military
2.4  0.09
In the legislature
4.8  0.51
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.56
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.41
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.21
Effective investigations
8.2  0.30
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.16
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.26

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.30
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.42
Right to information
3.3  0.46
Civic participation
3.4  0.53
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.43
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.17
6.1  0.36
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.33
6.2  0.54
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.40
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.14
Respect for due process
6.5  0.49
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

84
Hong
Hong Kong
Kong SAR,
SAR, China
Region: East Asia & Paci�c
China Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.76 5/15 16/37 16/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.65 0.00 7/15 27/37 31/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.84 0.00 3/15 8/37 8/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.73 -0.01 3/15 15/37 15/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.65 -0.01 6/15 32/37 38/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.93 0.00 2/15 2/37 2/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.81 -0.01 4/15 12/37 12/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.77 0.00 4/15 11/37 11/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.72 0.00 5/15 14/37 14/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Hong Kong SAR, China East Asia & Paci�c High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.68 4.1  0.74 7.1  0.63

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.72 4.2  0.69 7.2  0.68
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.59 4.3  0.71 7.3  0.96
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.75 4.4  0.56 7.4  0.72
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.56 4.5  0.74 7.5  0.75
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.58 4.6  0.50 7.6  0.80
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.62 7.7  0.88

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.83
In the executive branch
2.2  0.94
In the judiciary
2.3  0.88
In the police/military
2.4  0.72
In the legislature
4.8  0.68
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.93
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.85
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.70
Effective investigations
8.2  0.70
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.76
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.68

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.72
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.74
Right to information
3.3  0.64
Civic participation
3.4  0.83
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.87
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.58
6.1  0.74
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.71
6.2  0.96
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.76
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.87
Respect for due process
6.5  0.73
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 85

 Hungary
Region: EU & EFTA & North America
Hungary Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.53 24/24 36/37 60/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -2 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.40 -0.02 24/24 37/37 108/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.51 0.00 23/24 35/37 53/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.46 0.00 24/24 35/37 80/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.58 0.00 24/24 36/37 59/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.89 -0.01 8/24 12/37 13/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.47 -0.01 24/24 37/37 86/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.45 0.00 24/24 37/37 96/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.47 -0.01 23/24 35/37 57/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Hungary EU & EFTA & North America High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.35 4.1  0.45 7.1  0.54

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.41
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.32
Independent auditing
1.4  0.31
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.48
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.51
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.81
Right to life & security
4.3  0.56
Due process of law
4.4  0.48
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.53
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.68
Right to privacy
4.7  0.49
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.28
No discrimination
7.3  0.65
No corruption
7.4  0.35
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.34
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.38
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.64

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.40
In the executive branch
2.2  0.71
In the judiciary
2.3  0.70
In the police/military
2.4  0.21
In the legislature
4.8  0.64
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.92
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.76
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.48
Effective investigations
8.2  0.53
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.41
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.28

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.55
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.37
Right to information
3.3  0.42
Civic participation
3.4  0.49
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.65
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.38
6.1  0.54
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.56
6.2  0.61
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.47
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.27
Respect for due process
6.5  0.45
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

86
India
Region: South Asia
India Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.51 3/6 6/30 69/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.61 0.00 1/6 3/30 41/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.42 -0.01 2/6 9/30 85/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.61 0.00 1/6 1/30 32/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.51 -0.02 3/6 10/30 84/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.59 0.00 4/6 24/30 114/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.49 0.00 2/6 8/30 74/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.45 0.00 2/6 18/30 98/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.40 0.00 3/6 9/30 78/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

India South Asia Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.72 4.1  0.47 7.1  0.41

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.65
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.57
Independent auditing
1.4  0.41
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.58
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.73
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.47
Right to life & security
4.3  0.40
Due process of law
4.4  0.58
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.56
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.49
Right to privacy
4.7  0.59
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.40
No discrimination
7.3  0.51
No corruption
7.4  0.63
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.20
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.40
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.61

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.42
In the executive branch
2.2  0.50
In the judiciary
2.3  0.43
In the police/military
2.4  0.33
In the legislature
4.8  0.50
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.79
Absence of crime
5.2  0.69
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.30
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.27
Effective investigations
8.2  0.38
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.37
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.37

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.56
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.59
Right to information
3.3  0.58
Civic participation
3.4  0.71
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.46
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.55
6.1  0.41
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.40
6.2  0.46
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.40
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.52
Respect for due process
6.5  0.64
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 87

 Indonesia
Region: East Asia & Paci�c
Indonesia Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.53 9/15 5/30 59/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.01 4 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.68 0.02 5/15 1/30 26/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.39 0.02 14/15 12/30 92/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.55 0.01 7/15 4/30 49/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.52 0.00 8/15 8/30 79/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.68 -0.02 12/15 12/30 82/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.55 0.00 8/15 3/30 49/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.46 0.02 13/15 17/30 95/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.39 0.02 12/15 10/30 79/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Indonesia East Asia & Paci�c Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.80 4.1  0.39 7.1  0.52

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.68 4.2  0.51 7.2  0.30
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.59 4.3  0.41 7.3  0.40
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.61 4.4  0.68 7.4  0.49
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.68 4.5  0.45 7.5  0.52
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.72 4.6  0.41 7.6  0.40
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.67 7.7  0.57

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.48
In the executive branch
2.2  0.32
In the judiciary
2.3  0.51
In the police/military
2.4  0.27
In the legislature
4.8  0.61
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.85
Absence of crime
5.2  0.77
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.43
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.35
Effective investigations
8.2  0.52
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.29
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.28

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.36
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.55
Right to information
3.3  0.65
Civic participation
3.4  0.62
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.47
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.44
6.1  0.56
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.41
6.2  0.67
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.52
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.43
Respect for due process
6.5  0.58
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

88
Iran
Region: Middle East & North Africa
Iran Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.43 7/8 41/42 109/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.02 -3 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.37 -0.02 7/8 37/42 114/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.43 -0.02 6/8 32/42 76/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.28 -0.01 7/8 41/42 124/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.22 -0.02 8/8 42/42 128/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.73 -0.02 4/8 21/42 63/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.46 -0.02 6/8 33/42 88/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.55 0.00 4/8 19/42 58/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.37 -0.05 7/8 31/42 87/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Iran Middle East & North Africa Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.40 4.1  0.44 7.1  0.65

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.37
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.41
Independent auditing
1.4  0.39
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.19
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.46
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.23
Right to life & security
4.3  0.40
Due process of law
4.4  0.19
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.05
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.12
Right to privacy
4.7  0.12
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.40
No discrimination
7.3  0.44
No corruption
7.4  0.47
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.56
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.59
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.75

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.36
In the executive branch
2.2  0.54
In the judiciary
2.3  0.52
In the police/military
2.4  0.30
In the legislature
4.8  0.24
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.76
Absence of crime
5.2  0.85
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.57
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.25
Effective investigations
8.2  0.45
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.55
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.26

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.35
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.32
Right to information
3.3  0.17
Civic participation
3.4  0.30
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.42
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.28
6.1  0.35
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.40
6.2  0.44
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.51
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.46
Respect for due process
6.5  0.54
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 89

 Italy
Region: EU & EFTA & North America
Italy Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.66 18/24 26/37 27/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.71 0.00 17/24 22/37 23/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.63 0.00 19/24 30/37 35/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.63 0.00 18/24 26/37 29/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.73 0.00 17/24 22/37 23/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.75 0.00 23/24 32/37 56/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.61 0.01 19/24 29/37 32/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.56 0.00 22/24 35/37 54/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.64 0.00 14/24 21/37 21/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Italy EU & EFTA & North America High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.72 4.1  0.68 7.1  0.62

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.70
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.74
Independent auditing
1.4  0.63
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.69
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.79
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.86
Right to life & security
4.3  0.71
Due process of law
4.4  0.69
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.74
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.79
Right to privacy
4.7  0.79
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.61
No discrimination
7.3  0.66
No corruption
7.4  0.70
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.32
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.36
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.69

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.56
In the executive branch
2.2  0.81
In the judiciary
2.3  0.85
In the police/military
2.4  0.30
In the legislature
4.8  0.58
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.80
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.44
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.47
Effective investigations
8.2  0.60
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.53
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.62

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.61
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.64
Right to information
3.3  0.67
Civic participation
3.4  0.60
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.75
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.82
6.1  0.61
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.71
6.2  0.73
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.45
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.60
Respect for due process
6.5  0.64
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

90
Jamaica
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Jamaica Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.57 13/30 14/42 49/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.64 0.02 4/30 3/42 32/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.55 0.00 12/30 12/42 47/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.56 0.01 9/30 10/42 43/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.64 0.01 11/30 7/42 40/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.61 -0.01 25/30 37/42 109/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.54 0.00 10/30 13/42 51/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.51 0.00 17/30 25/42 70/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.50 0.00 13/30 15/42 49/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Jamaica Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.67 4.1  0.62 7.1  0.48

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.69 4.2  0.58 7.2  0.55
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.62 4.3  0.49 7.3  0.70
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.44 4.4  0.67 7.4  0.72
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.67 4.5  0.68 7.5  0.24
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.74 4.6  0.70 7.6  0.27
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.74 7.7  0.63

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.49
In the executive branch
2.2  0.81
In the judiciary
2.3  0.62
In the police/military
2.4  0.26
In the legislature
4.8  0.63
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.62
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.21
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.40
Effective investigations
8.2  0.39
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.30
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.52

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.37
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.60
Right to information
3.3  0.66
Civic participation
3.4  0.62
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.67
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.71
6.1  0.54
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.49
6.2  0.72
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.37
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.48
Respect for due process
6.5  0.59
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 91

 Japan
Region: East Asia & Paci�c
Japan Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.78 4/15 15/37 15/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.71 0.00 4/15 23/37 24/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.82 0.00 4/15 13/37 13/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.68 0.00 5/15 21/37 22/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.77 -0.01 3/15 18/37 19/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.92 0.00 3/15 5/37 5/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.79 0.00 5/15 16/37 16/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.79 0.00 2/15 9/37 9/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.76 0.01 2/15 9/37 9/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Japan East Asia & Paci�c High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.61 4.1  0.82 7.1  0.71

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.70 4.2  0.90 7.2  0.81
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.69 4.3  0.75 7.3  0.94
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.73 4.4  0.71 7.4  0.76
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.71 4.5  0.66 7.5  0.72
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.81 4.6  0.83 7.6  0.74
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.71 7.7  0.88

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.79
In the executive branch
2.2  0.97
In the judiciary
2.3  0.93
In the police/military
2.4  0.58
In the legislature
4.8  0.77
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.93
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.84
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.68
Effective investigations
8.2  0.64
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.83
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.77

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.74
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.62
Right to information
3.3  0.67
Civic participation
3.4  0.71
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.91
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.71
6.1  0.72
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.75
6.2  0.95
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.75
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.74
Respect for due process
6.5  0.76
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

92
Jordan
Region: Middle East & North Africa
Jordan Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.57 2/8 15/42 50/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 -1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.49 -0.01 5/8 23/42 80/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.60 0.02 2/8 6/42 39/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.42 0.01 3/8 36/42 98/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.48 -0.01 3/8 34/42 91/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.76 -0.01 2/8 14/42 49/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.60 0.02 2/8 4/42 34/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.62 -0.01 2/8 6/42 37/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.57 -0.01 2/8 4/42 32/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Jordan Middle East & North Africa Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.50 4.1  0.65 7.1  0.60

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.48 4.2  0.61 7.2  0.66
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.56 4.3  0.48 7.3  0.75
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.53 4.4  0.44 7.4  0.63
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.44 4.5  0.39 7.5  0.38
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.42 4.6  0.41 7.6  0.60
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.40 7.7  0.73

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.58
In the executive branch
2.2  0.70
In the judiciary
2.3  0.78
In the police/military
2.4  0.33
In the legislature
4.8  0.50
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.85
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.43
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.49
Effective investigations
8.2  0.63
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.55
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.56

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.35
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.56
Right to information
3.3  0.38
Civic participation
3.4  0.38
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.69
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.58
6.1  0.46
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.48
6.2  0.72
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.61
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.60
Respect for due process
6.5  0.62
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 93

 Kazakhstan
Region: Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Kazakhstan Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.52 4/14 19/42 62/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 4 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.42 -0.01 9/14 35/42 102/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.49 0.02 3/14 18/42 57/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.46 -0.01 11/14 29/42 81/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.46 -0.01 11/14 37/42 100/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.78 0.00 8/14 8/42 39/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.51 0.00 3/14 20/42 65/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.62 0.02 1/14 9/42 40/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.46 0.02 5/14 19/42 58/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Kazakhstan Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.45 4.1  0.57 7.1  0.54

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.42
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.50
Independent auditing
1.4  0.45
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.34
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.36
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.60
Right to life & security
4.3  0.43
Due process of law
4.4  0.34
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.57
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.30
Right to privacy
4.7  0.33
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.50
No discrimination
7.3  0.54
No corruption
7.4  0.42
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.85
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.73
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.74

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.46
In the executive branch
2.2  0.57
In the judiciary
2.3  0.57
In the police/military
2.4  0.34
In the legislature
4.8  0.51
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.78
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.56
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.41
Effective investigations
8.2  0.69
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.44
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.42

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.53
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.45
Right to information
3.3  0.34
Civic participation
3.4  0.51
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.53
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.31
6.1  0.60
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.43
6.2  0.63
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.56
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.28
Respect for due process
6.5  0.46
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

94
Kenya
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Kenya Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.45 18/31 17/30 102/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 3 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.49 0.00 16/31 11/30 78/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.27 0.00 27/31 27/30 122/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.48 -0.01 7/31 11/30 72/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.47 0.01 18/31 11/30 95/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.58 0.01 26/31 26/30 117/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.45 -0.01 15/31 13/30 93/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.46 -0.01 16/31 15/30 91/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.38 0.01 14/31 11/30 80/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Kenya Sub-Saharan Africa Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.63 4.1  0.50 7.1  0.44

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.51 4.2  0.31 7.2  0.51
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.47 4.3  0.40 7.3  0.42
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.35 4.4  0.52 7.4  0.50
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.52 4.5  0.63 7.5  0.29
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.46 4.6  0.23 7.6  0.44
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.60 7.7  0.62

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.29
In the executive branch
2.2  0.46
In the judiciary
2.3  0.26
In the police/military
2.4  0.08
In the legislature
4.8  0.55
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.59
Absence of crime
5.2  0.83
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.33
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.35
Effective investigations
8.2  0.41
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.38
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.36

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.29
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.39
Right to information
3.3  0.57
Civic participation
3.4  0.68
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.32
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.48
6.1  0.44
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.40
6.2  0.46
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.45
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.33
Respect for due process
6.5  0.55
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 95

 Kosovo
Region: Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Kosovo Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.54 2/14 17/42 54/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
Factor Score Regional Income Global
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
8.1
8.1 2.2
2.2 Corruption
Constraints on 0.5
0.52 0.00 2/14 21/42 71/128 7.7 2.3
Government Powers 7.7 2.3

7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Absence of Corruption 0.46 0.00 5/14 22/42 62/128
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1

7.4
0 3.2
Open Government 0.56 0.00 3/14 11/42 44/128 Civil 7.4 3.2
Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Fundamental Rights 0.60 0.00 3/14 15/42 52/128 7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

7.1
7.1 4.1
4.1
Order and Security 0.84 0.00 2/14 1/42 25/128
6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2

6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
Regulatory Enforcement 0.44 0.00 10/14 36/42 97/128
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1 4.6
Civil Justice 0.46 0.00 13/14 34/42 93/128 6.1
5.3 4.7
4.6
Fundamental
Enforcement 5.3 5.2
5.2 5.1
5.1 4.8
4.8
4.7
Rights
Order and
Criminal Justice 0.47 0.00 4/14 18/42 56/128
Security

* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the

Low Medium High 2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score
2019-2020 Score
10 percent level

Kosovo Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.61 4.1  0.63 7.1  0.60

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.42
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.60
Independent auditing
1.4  0.38
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.57
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.55
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.65
Right to life & security
4.3  0.60
Due process of law
4.4  0.57
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.73
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.51
Right to privacy
4.7  0.62
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.53
No discrimination
7.3  0.36
No corruption
7.4  0.44
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.24
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.42
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.62

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.45
In the executive branch
2.2  0.45
In the judiciary
2.3  0.64
In the police/military
2.4  0.31
In the legislature
4.8  0.45
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.89
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.62
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.35
Effective investigations
8.2  0.34
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.60
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.60

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.50
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.51
Right to information
3.3  0.57
Civic participation
3.4  0.67
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.50
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.29
6.1  0.36
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.60
6.2  0.56
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.39
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.35
Respect for due process
6.5  0.55
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

96
Kyrgyz
Kyrgyz Republic
Region: Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Republic Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.48 11/14 12/30 87/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.01 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.48 0.00 3/14 13/30 84/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.32 0.01 14/14 22/30 113/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.54 0.00 5/14 5/30 51/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.51 0.02 9/14 9/30 82/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.76 0.01 11/14 5/30 50/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.44 -0.01 8/14 14/30 95/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.49 0.00 9/14 11/30 80/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.33 0.02 13/14 21/30 105/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Kyrgyz Republic Eastern Europe & Central Asia Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.57 4.1  0.54 7.1  0.60

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.30
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.43
Independent auditing
1.4  0.47
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.60
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.52
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.52
Right to life & security
4.3  0.35
Due process of law
4.4  0.60
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.58
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.32
Right to privacy
4.7  0.64
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.56
No discrimination
7.3  0.37
No corruption
7.4  0.34
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.51
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.39
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.65

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.37
In the executive branch
2.2  0.39
In the judiciary
2.3  0.38
In the police/military
2.4  0.15
In the legislature
4.8  0.55
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.79
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.48
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.39
Effective investigations
8.2  0.50
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.23
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.33

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.53
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.53
Right to information
3.3  0.59
Civic participation
3.4  0.50
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.29
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.21
6.1  0.51
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.35
6.2  0.44
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.53
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.32
Respect for due process
6.5  0.43
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 97

 Lebanon
Region: Middle East & North Africa
Lebanon Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.45 6/8 37/42 96/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.02 -4 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.50 -0.02 4/8 22/42 76/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.36 -0.03 8/8 38/42 101/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.40 -0.03 4/8 37/42 101/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.50 -0.02 2/8 32/42 88/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.66 0.02 7/8 29/42 92/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.45 0.01 7/8 35/42 92/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.42 -0.02 7/8 39/42 110/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.35 -0.03 8/8 35/42 100/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Lebanon Middle East & North Africa Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.71 4.1  0.42 7.1  0.50

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.46 4.2  0.59 7.2  0.41
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.44 4.3  0.45 7.3  0.38
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.32 4.4  0.55 7.4  0.36
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.55 4.5  0.47 7.5  0.34
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.51 4.6  0.40 7.6  0.41
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.60 7.7  0.54

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.34
In the executive branch
2.2  0.44
In the judiciary
2.3  0.52
In the police/military
2.4  0.16
In the legislature
4.8  0.50
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.70
Absence of crime
5.2  0.92
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.35
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.48
Effective investigations
8.2  0.42
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.29
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.12

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.24
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.43
Right to information
3.3  0.50
Civic participation
3.4  0.45
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.43
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.23
6.1  0.48
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.45
6.2  0.46
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.39
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.53
Respect for due process
6.5  0.39
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

98
Liberia
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Liberia Income Group: Low

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.45 15/31 8/19 98/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.52 -0.01 13/31 7/19 70/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.32 0.00 23/31 14/19 112/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.47 -0.02 9/31 4/19 75/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.52 0.00 12/31 6/19 75/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.61 0.00 23/31 14/19 111/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.43 0.00 18/31 10/19 102/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.44 0.00 22/31 11/19 106/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.31 -0.01 25/31 14/19 111/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Liberia Sub-Saharan Africa Low

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.54 4.1  0.48 7.1  0.52

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.52 4.2  0.52 7.2  0.51
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.46 4.3  0.38 7.3  0.35
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.36 4.4  0.61 7.4  0.39
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.61 4.5  0.63 7.5  0.39
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.65 4.6  0.44 7.6  0.43
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.65 7.7  0.49

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.31
In the executive branch
2.2  0.33
In the judiciary
2.3  0.41
In the police/military
2.4  0.25
In the legislature
4.8  0.48
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.48
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.35
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.28
Effective investigations
8.2  0.30
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.24
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.34

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.18
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.45
Right to information
3.3  0.60
Civic participation
3.4  0.65
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.37
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.28
6.1  0.40
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.38
6.2  0.43
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.41
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.50
Respect for due process
6.5  0.41
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 99

 Madagascar
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Madagascar Income Group: Low

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.44 20/31 12/19 105/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.01 4 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.46 0.02 18/31 11/19 93/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.27 0.01 28/31 17/19 123/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.46 0.00 10/31 5/19 79/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.47 0.00 17/31 12/19 92/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.70 -0.01 10/31 7/19 71/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.37 0.03 27/31 16/19 120/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.43 0.03 23/31 12/19 107/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.36 0.01 21/31 10/19 96/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Madagascar Sub-Saharan Africa Low

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.47 4.1  0.60 7.1  0.41

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.40
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.45
Independent auditing
1.4  0.41
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.49
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.51
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.38
Right to life & security
4.3  0.34
Due process of law
4.4  0.49
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.59
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.25
Right to privacy
4.7  0.54
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.48
No discrimination
7.3  0.31
No corruption
7.4  0.37
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.50
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.42
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.53

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.31
In the executive branch
2.2  0.28
In the judiciary
2.3  0.35
In the police/military
2.4  0.15
In the legislature
4.8  0.61
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.65
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.45
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.34
Effective investigations
8.2  0.48
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.21
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.43

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.34
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.43
Right to information
3.3  0.49
Civic participation
3.4  0.58
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.34
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.35
6.1  0.33
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.34
6.2  0.35
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.42
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.31
Respect for due process
6.5  0.45
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

100
Malawi
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Malawi Income Group: Low

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.52 8/31 3/19 65/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 3 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.56 0.00 10/31 5/19 57/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.41 -0.01 13/31 7/19 87/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.43 0.00 13/31 7/19 89/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.58 -0.01 7/31 1/19 58/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.69 0.01 14/31 9/19 79/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.45 0.00 14/31 8/19 90/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.56 0.02 8/31 2/19 55/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.46 0.01 8/31 3/19 59/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Malawi Sub-Saharan Africa Low

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.56 4.1  0.56 7.1  0.47

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.64 4.2  0.62 7.2  0.60
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.53 4.3  0.40 7.3  0.48
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.45 4.4  0.58 7.4  0.71
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.58 4.5  0.71 7.5  0.49
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.60 4.6  0.54 7.6  0.58
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.70 7.7  0.59

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.36
In the executive branch
2.2  0.53
In the judiciary
2.3  0.41
In the police/military
2.4  0.35
In the legislature
4.8  0.53
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.70
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.36
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.36
Effective investigations
8.2  0.51
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.30
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.54

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.17
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.42
Right to information
3.3  0.60
Civic participation
3.4  0.53
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.47
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.64
6.1  0.41
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.40
6.2  0.39
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.33
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.52
Respect for due process
6.5  0.61
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 101

 Malaysia
Region: East Asia & Paci�c
Malaysia Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.58 7/15 12/42 47/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.03 4 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.58 0.05* 8/15 12/42 50/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.60 0.01 7/15 8/42 41/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.42 0.04 13/15 34/42 95/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.52 0.04* 9/15 29/42 80/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.79 0.00 7/15 5/42 34/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.57 0.04* 7/15 7/42 40/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.63 0.03* 7/15 5/42 35/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.56 0.01 7/15 6/42 38/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Malaysia East Asia & Paci�c Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.58 4.1  0.55 7.1  0.58

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.62 4.2  0.55 7.2  0.61
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.60 4.3  0.58 7.3  0.69
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.58 4.4  0.51 7.4  0.54
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.51 4.5  0.44 7.5  0.71
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.61 4.6  0.41 7.6  0.60
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.47 7.7  0.66

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.57
In the executive branch
2.2  0.76
In the judiciary
2.3  0.62
In the police/military
2.4  0.42
In the legislature
4.8  0.63
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.75
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.61
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.62
Effective investigations
8.2  0.60
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.55
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.48

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.33
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.42
Right to information
3.3  0.51
Civic participation
3.4  0.44
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.65
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.40
6.1  0.52
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.58
6.2  0.70
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.57
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.59
Respect for due process
6.5  0.49
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

102
Mali
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Mali Income Group: Low

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.44 21/31 13/19 106/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -2 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.47 -0.01 17/31 10/19 86/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.34 0.03 21/31 13/19 107/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.46 0.02 11/31 6/19 83/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.54 0.01 11/31 5/19 71/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.51 -0.1* 28/31 17/19 122/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.49 -0.05 10/31 4/19 70/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.42 -0.01 26/31 15/19 111/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.30 0.02 29/31 18/19 120/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Mali Sub-Saharan Africa Low

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.59 4.1  0.64 7.1  0.40

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.43 4.2  0.42 7.2  0.45
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.37 4.3  0.37 7.3  0.14
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.28 4.4  0.55 7.4  0.42
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.55 4.5  0.73 7.5  0.56
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.59 4.6  0.31 7.6  0.44
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.63 7.7  0.50

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.40
In the executive branch
2.2  0.24
In the judiciary
2.3  0.35
In the police/military
2.4  0.37
In the legislature
4.8  0.69
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.63
Absence of crime
5.2  0.48
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.42
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.25
Effective investigations
8.2  0.30
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.30
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.34

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.25
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.46
Right to information
3.3  0.56
Civic participation
3.4  0.56
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.27
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.25
6.1  0.41
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.37
6.2  0.51
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.39
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.52
Respect for due process
6.5  0.62
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 103

 Mauritania
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Mauritania Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.36 29/31 27/30 123/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.01 1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.33 0.03 30/31 26/30 121/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.29 -0.02 25/31 26/30 119/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.27 0.01 31/31 29/30 127/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.40 0.02 26/31 21/30 113/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.65 0.00 18/31 19/30 95/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.28 0.02 31/31 29/30 126/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.36 0.04 30/31 28/30 124/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.30 0.00 28/31 24/30 117/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Mauritania Sub-Saharan Africa Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.34 4.1  0.41 7.1  0.39

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.22
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.35
Independent auditing
1.4  0.29
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.35
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.43
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.48
Right to life & security
4.3  0.37
Due process of law
4.4  0.35
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.27
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.36
Right to privacy
4.7  0.50
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.28
No discrimination
7.3  0.23
No corruption
7.4  0.27
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.49
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.32
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.57

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.27
In the executive branch
2.2  0.37
In the judiciary
2.3  0.29
In the police/military
2.4  0.23
In the legislature
4.8  0.50
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.61
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.35
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.27
Effective investigations
8.2  0.49
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.26
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.27

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.17
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.28
Right to information
3.3  0.37
Civic participation
3.4  0.25
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.31
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.16
6.1  0.25
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.37
6.2  0.31
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.37
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.17
Respect for due process
6.5  0.30
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

104
Mauritius
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Mauritius Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.61 3/31 6/42 38/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 -1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.60 0.00 7/31 9/42 47/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.59 0.00 3/31 10/42 43/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.54 0.00 4/31 14/42 50/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.64 -0.01 3/31 9/42 43/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.75 -0.01 3/31 15/42 51/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.63 0.00 1/31 2/42 27/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.64 0.00 3/31 3/42 31/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.53 0.01 4/31 10/42 43/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Mauritius Sub-Saharan Africa Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.63 4.1  0.59 7.1  0.63

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.67
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.44
Independent auditing
1.4  0.52
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.61
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.72
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.70
Right to life & security
4.3  0.56
Due process of law
4.4  0.61
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.78
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.61
Right to privacy
4.7  0.66
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.72
No discrimination
7.3  0.75
No corruption
7.4  0.73
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.29
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.64
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.69

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.60
In the executive branch
2.2  0.79
In the judiciary
2.3  0.63
In the police/military
2.4  0.33
In the legislature
4.8  0.61
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.83
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.44
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.41
Effective investigations
8.2  0.41
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.51
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.53

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.60
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.42
Right to information
3.3  0.60
Civic participation
3.4  0.54
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.66
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.65
6.1  0.69
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.56
6.2  0.82
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.49
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.56
Respect for due process
6.5  0.59
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 105

 Mexico
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Mexico Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.44 26/30 39/42 104/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -3 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.46 -0.01 25/30 30/42 89/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.27 -0.02 29/30 42/42 121/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.60 0.00 7/30 7/42 36/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.52 -0.02 24/30 28/42 78/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.53 -0.03* 29/30 41/42 121/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.45 -0.01 23/30 34/42 91/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.39 -0.01 26/30 40/42 116/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.30 0.00 26/30 41/42 119/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Mexico Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.52 4.1  0.38 7.1  0.41

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.44
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.44
Independent auditing
1.4  0.27
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.51
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.60
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.46
Right to life & security
4.3  0.38
Due process of law
4.4  0.51
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.75
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.53
Right to privacy
4.7  0.62
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.29
No discrimination
7.3  0.32
No corruption
7.4  0.44
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.26
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.40
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.60

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.31
In the executive branch
2.2  0.32
In the judiciary
2.3  0.32
In the police/military
2.4  0.15
In the legislature
4.8  0.50
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.36
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.24
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.19
Effective investigations
8.2  0.34
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.22
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.27

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.67
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.59
Right to information
3.3  0.54
Civic participation
3.4  0.62
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.28
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.40
6.1  0.53
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.38
6.2  0.51
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.33
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.35
Respect for due process
6.5  0.54
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

106
Moldova
Region: Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Moldova Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.5 10/14 9/30 82/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.01 3 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.46 0.03* 6/14 15/30 92/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.34 0.02 12/14 19/30 106/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.55 0.00 4/14 3/30 48/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.54 0.01 8/14 6/30 68/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.80 0.00 4/14 2/30 31/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.43 0.01 13/14 18/30 101/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.48 0.01 11/14 12/30 86/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.36 0.02 11/14 15/30 89/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Moldova Eastern Europe & Central Asia Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.60 4.1  0.54 7.1  0.50

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.37
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.46
Independent auditing
1.4  0.31
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.51
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.50
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.68
Right to life & security
4.3  0.44
Due process of law
4.4  0.51
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.63
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.47
Right to privacy
4.7  0.59
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.44
No discrimination
7.3  0.33
No corruption
7.4  0.35
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.48
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.59
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.66

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.33
In the executive branch
2.2  0.39
In the judiciary
2.3  0.51
In the police/military
2.4  0.13
In the legislature
4.8  0.48
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.83
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.58
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.27
Effective investigations
8.2  0.47
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.37
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.42

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.60
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.52
Right to information
3.3  0.51
Civic participation
3.4  0.56
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.36
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.20
6.1  0.54
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.44
6.2  0.42
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.46
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.34
Respect for due process
6.5  0.41
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 107

 Mongolia
Region: East Asia & Paci�c
Mongolia Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.53 8/15 4/30 57/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -3 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.53 -0.01 9/15 6/30 65/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.42 -0.02 12/15 7/30 83/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.49 -0.02 10/15 10/30 70/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.57 -0.01 7/15 4/30 61/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.77 0.00 10/15 4/30 45/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.47 -0.02 11/15 10/30 82/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.53 -0.01 9/15 7/30 68/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.49 -0.01 8/15 2/30 52/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Mongolia East Asia & Paci�c Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.67 4.1  0.55 7.1  0.53

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.50
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.44
Independent auditing
1.4  0.41
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.62
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.55
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.63
Right to life & security
4.3  0.50
Due process of law
4.4  0.62
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.62
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.47
Right to privacy
4.7  0.67
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.53
No discrimination
7.3  0.49
No corruption
7.4  0.47
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.59
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.46
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.64

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.39
In the executive branch
2.2  0.51
In the judiciary
2.3  0.63
In the police/military
2.4  0.15
In the legislature
4.8  0.53
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.83
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.47
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.42
Effective investigations
8.2  0.57
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.52
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.55

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.39
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.50
Right to information
3.3  0.60
Civic participation
3.4  0.47
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.55
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.34
6.1  0.57
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.50
6.2  0.47
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.53
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.33
Respect for due process
6.5  0.44
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

108
Morocco
Region: Middle East & North Africa
Morocco Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.5 4/8 8/30 79/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 -3 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.51 -0.02 3/8 8/30 74/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.44 0.00 5/8 5/30 73/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.44 0.00 2/8 13/30 86/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.45 0.00 6/8 16/30 103/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.68 -0.01 6/8 13/30 83/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.56 0.02 3/8 2/30 46/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.54 0.00 5/8 4/30 60/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.38 0.00 5/8 12/30 83/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Morocco Middle East & North Africa Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.58 4.1  0.68 7.1  0.52

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.53 4.2  0.35 7.2  0.56
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.45 4.3  0.39 7.3  0.41
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.46 4.4  0.46 7.4  0.50
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.46 4.5  0.44 7.5  0.64
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.57 4.6  0.24 7.6  0.49
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.49 7.7  0.65

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.48
In the executive branch
2.2  0.45
In the judiciary
2.3  0.44
In the police/military
2.4  0.39
In the legislature
4.8  0.58
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.65
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.39
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.48
Effective investigations
8.2  0.45
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.38
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.33

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.37
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.47
Right to information
3.3  0.45
Civic participation
3.4  0.47
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.39
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.23
6.1  0.54
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.39
6.2  0.57
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.53
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.53
Respect for due process
6.5  0.63
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 109

 Mozambique
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Mozambique Income Group: Low

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.41 25/31 15/19 113/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -2 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.43 -0.02 20/31 13/19 101/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.37 0.00 18/31 11/19 99/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.35 -0.02 24/31 15/19 115/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.41 -0.01 24/31 16/19 109/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.55 -0.07* 27/31 16/19 120/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.40 0.02 22/31 12/19 112/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.46 0.00 17/31 8/19 94/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.33 -0.01 24/31 13/19 108/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Mozambique Sub-Saharan Africa Low

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.52 4.1  0.56 7.1  0.46

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.42
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.44
Independent auditing
1.4  0.41
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.41
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.39
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.26
Right to life & security
4.3  0.25
Due process of law
4.4  0.41
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.64
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.26
Right to privacy
4.7  0.46
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.52
No discrimination
7.3  0.43
No corruption
7.4  0.34
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.36
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.50
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.61

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.32
In the executive branch
2.2  0.37
In the judiciary
2.3  0.44
In the police/military
2.4  0.33
In the legislature
4.8  0.46
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.60
Absence of crime
5.2  0.81
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.25
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.23
Effective investigations
8.2  0.29
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.11
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.52

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.17
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.32
Right to information
3.3  0.43
Civic participation
3.4  0.49
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.41
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.50
6.1  0.42
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.25
6.2  0.47
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.47
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.28
Respect for due process
6.5  0.37
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

110
Myanmar
Region: East Asia & Paci�c
Myanmar Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.42 14/15 20/30 112/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.45 0.00 13/15 18/30 98/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.46 -0.01 10/15 3/30 63/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.37 0.02 14/15 23/30 109/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.31 0.00 14/15 29/30 125/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.65 0.00 14/15 18/30 94/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.46 0.00 13/15 11/30 87/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.37 0.01 14/15 27/30 122/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.27 -0.02 14/15 26/30 122/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Myanmar East Asia & Paci�c Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.42 4.1  0.42 7.1  0.37

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.44
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.38
Independent auditing
1.4  0.45
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.38
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.62
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.16
Right to life & security
4.3  0.18
Due process of law
4.4  0.38
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.28
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.17
Right to privacy
4.7  0.39
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.26
No discrimination
7.3  0.34
No corruption
7.4  0.24
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.47
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.42
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.51

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.56
In the executive branch
2.2  0.27
In the judiciary
2.3  0.44
In the police/military
2.4  0.57
In the legislature
4.8  0.48
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.83
Absence of crime
5.2  0.63
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.50
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.39
Effective investigations
8.2  0.34
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.28
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.16

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.20
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.40
Right to information
3.3  0.44
Civic participation
3.4  0.44
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.40
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.14
6.1  0.50
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.18
6.2  0.63
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.52
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.29
Respect for due process
6.5  0.38
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 111

 Namibia
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Namibia Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.63 1/31 4/42 35/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 -1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.69 0.01 1/31 2/42 25/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.53 0.00 5/31 14/42 50/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.58 0.00 3/31 8/42 40/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.66 0.00 1/31 5/42 34/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.74 0.00 4/31 20/42 60/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.58 0.00 4/31 6/42 38/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.67 0.00 1/31 2/42 26/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.55 0.01 2/31 7/42 39/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Namibia Sub-Saharan Africa Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.75 4.1  0.54 7.1  0.51

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.78
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.52
Independent auditing
1.4  0.62
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.74
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.74
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.75
Right to life & security
4.3  0.55
Due process of law
4.4  0.74
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.79
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.56
Right to privacy
4.7  0.76
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.65
No discrimination
7.3  0.82
No corruption
7.4  0.79
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.45
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.70
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.73

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.46
In the executive branch
2.2  0.86
In the judiciary
2.3  0.53
In the police/military
2.4  0.29
In the legislature
4.8  0.62
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.69
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.52
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.37
Effective investigations
8.2  0.38
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.48
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.65

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.33
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.53
Right to information
3.3  0.72
Civic participation
3.4  0.72
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.65
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.80
6.1  0.48
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.55
6.2  0.67
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.55
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.57
Respect for due process
6.5  0.65
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

112
Nepal
Region: South Asia
Nepal Income Group: Low

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.53 1/6 2/19 61/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.60 0.00 2/6 3/19 46/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.41 -0.02 3/6 8/19 88/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.52 0.00 2/6 2/19 58/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.52 -0.02 2/6 7/19 76/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.73 0.00 1/6 4/19 62/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.51 0.01 1/6 2/19 62/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.48 0.01 1/6 5/19 82/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.44 -0.01 2/6 4/19 67/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Nepal South Asia Low

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.75 4.1  0.53 7.1  0.46

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.62
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.49
Independent auditing
1.4  0.45
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.63
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.66
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.40
Right to life & security
4.3  0.39
Due process of law
4.4  0.63
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.63
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.34
Right to privacy
4.7  0.64
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.44
No discrimination
7.3  0.42
No corruption
7.4  0.50
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.53
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.44
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.56

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.46
In the executive branch
2.2  0.40
In the judiciary
2.3  0.58
In the police/military
2.4  0.21
In the legislature
4.8  0.61
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.77
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.41
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.49
Effective investigations
8.2  0.56
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.39
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.34

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.31
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.54
Right to information
3.3  0.61
Civic participation
3.4  0.61
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.50
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.40
6.1  0.48
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.39
6.2  0.58
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.50
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.48
Respect for due process
6.5  0.51
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 113

 Netherlands
Region: EU & EFTA & North America
Netherlands Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.84 5/24 5/37 5/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.86 0.00 5/24 5/37 5/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.88 0.00 5/24 6/37 6/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.82 0.00 5/24 5/37 5/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.84 0.00 7/24 7/37 7/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.85 0.00 13/24 19/37 20/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.85 -0.01 5/24 7/37 7/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.85 -0.01 3/24 3/37 3/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.76 -0.01 7/24 8/37 8/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Netherlands EU & EFTA & North America High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.84 4.1  0.82 7.1  0.80

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.85
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.88
Independent auditing
1.4  0.84
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.85
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.90
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.93
Right to life & security
4.3  0.83
Due process of law
4.4  0.85
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.79
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.82
Right to privacy
4.7  0.86
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.90
No discrimination
7.3  0.93
No corruption
7.4  0.88
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.67
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.91
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.84

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.84
In the executive branch
2.2  0.97
In the judiciary
2.3  0.91
In the police/military
2.4  0.80
In the legislature
4.8  0.82
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.90
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.64
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.56
Effective investigations
8.2  0.70
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.77
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.70

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.79
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.74
Right to information
3.3  0.84
Civic participation
3.4  0.92
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.89
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.86
6.1  0.77
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.83
6.2  0.89
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.84
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.83
Respect for due process
6.5  0.91
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

114
New Zealand
Region: East Asia & Paci�c
New Zealand Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.83 1/15 7/37 7/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.85 0.00 1/15 7/37 7/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.87 0.00 2/15 7/37 7/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.82 0.00 1/15 6/37 6/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.81 0.00 1/15 11/37 11/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.89 0.00 4/15 13/37 14/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.85 0.00 2/15 5/37 5/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.78 0.01 3/15 10/37 10/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.72 0.00 4/15 13/37 13/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

New Zealand East Asia & Paci�c High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.85 4.1  0.72 7.1  0.72

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.87
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.82
Independent auditing
1.4  0.81
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.83
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.93
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.92
Right to life & security
4.3  0.77
Due process of law
4.4  0.83
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.82
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.81
Right to privacy
4.7  0.83
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.74
No discrimination
7.3  0.94
No corruption
7.4  0.86
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.74
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.69
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.80

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.86
In the executive branch
2.2  0.96
In the judiciary
2.3  0.92
In the police/military
2.4  0.76
In the legislature
4.8  0.75
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.89
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.79
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.60
Effective investigations
8.2  0.73
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.65
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.56

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.85
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.76
Right to information
3.3  0.83
Civic participation
3.4  0.84
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.89
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.86
6.1  0.78
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.77
6.2  0.95
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.82
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.88
Respect for due process
6.5  0.83
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 115

 Nicaragua
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Nicaragua Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.39 28/30 23/30 118/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -2 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.26 -0.01 29/30 30/30 127/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.34 0.00 24/30 18/30 105/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.37 -0.01 29/30 22/30 108/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.37 -0.02 29/30 24/30 116/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.70 -0.01 10/30 8/30 73/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.43 -0.03 25/30 19/30 104/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.38 -0.03 27/30 26/30 120/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.29 0.01 27/30 25/30 121/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Nicaragua Latin America & Caribbean Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.33 4.1  0.40 7.1  0.48

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.33
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.16
Independent auditing
1.4  0.17
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.36
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.23
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.34
Right to life & security
4.3  0.29
Due process of law
4.4  0.36
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.61
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.15
Right to privacy
4.7  0.35
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.37
No discrimination
7.3  0.37
No corruption
7.4  0.14
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.35
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.41
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.52

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.39
In the executive branch
2.2  0.28
In the judiciary
2.3  0.49
In the police/military
2.4  0.21
In the legislature
4.8  0.48
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.68
Absence of crime
5.2  0.95
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.46
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.33
Effective investigations
8.2  0.46
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.25
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.27

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.35
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.25
Right to information
3.3  0.36
Civic participation
3.4  0.53
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.41
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.04
6.1  0.43
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.29
6.2  0.60
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.45
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.24
Respect for due process
6.5  0.42
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

116
Niger
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Niger Income Group: Low

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.45 19/31 11/19 103/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.40 -0.02 24/31 15/19 106/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.40 -0.03 14/31 9/19 90/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.35 0.00 25/31 16/19 116/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.49 0.00 16/31 11/19 89/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.64 -0.08* 19/31 11/19 99/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.47 0.03 13/31 7/19 80/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.45 0.02 19/31 9/19 102/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.38 0.04 16/31 8/19 84/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Niger Sub-Saharan Africa Low

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.51 4.1  0.65 7.1  0.43

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.43 4.2  0.41 7.2  0.43
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.29 4.3  0.41 7.3  0.46
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.29 4.4  0.41 7.4  0.27
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.41 4.5  0.61 7.5  0.47
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.46 4.6  0.24 7.6  0.45
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.56 7.7  0.62

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.38
In the executive branch
2.2  0.49
In the judiciary
2.3  0.47
In the police/military
2.4  0.28
In the legislature
4.8  0.66
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.70
Absence of crime
5.2  0.69
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.55
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.29
Effective investigations
8.2  0.40
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.32
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.48

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.20
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.29
Right to information
3.3  0.45
Civic participation
3.4  0.45
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.44
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.31
6.1  0.50
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.41
6.2  0.56
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.45
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.36
Respect for due process
6.5  0.48
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 117

 Nigeria
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Nigeria Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.43 22/31 18/30 108/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.53 -0.01 12/31 7/30 68/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.33 -0.01 22/31 20/30 109/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.43 0.00 14/31 18/30 94/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.46 0.00 20/31 13/30 99/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.35 0.00 31/31 30/30 127/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.43 0.00 17/31 16/30 99/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.50 0.01 11/31 10/30 75/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.40 -0.03 13/31 8/30 76/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Nigeria Sub-Saharan Africa Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.68 4.1  0.53 7.1  0.61

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.53 4.2  0.27 7.2  0.57
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.47 4.3  0.35 7.3  0.49
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.46 4.4  0.50 7.4  0.50
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.50 4.5  0.54 7.5  0.23
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.51 4.6  0.37 7.6  0.43
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.58 7.7  0.66

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.31
In the executive branch
2.2  0.49
In the judiciary
2.3  0.35
In the police/military
2.4  0.17
In the legislature
4.8  0.51
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.55
Absence of crime
5.2  0.08
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.43
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.40
Effective investigations
8.2  0.38
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.34
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.51

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.20
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.39
Right to information
3.3  0.52
Civic participation
3.4  0.60
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.35
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.47
6.1  0.40
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.35
6.2  0.51
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.34
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.43
Respect for due process
6.5  0.49
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

118
North
North Macedonia
Region: Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Macedonia Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.53 3/14 18/42 58/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.47 0.00 4/14 28/42 87/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.44 -0.02 6/14 27/42 70/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.48 -0.01 7/14 25/42 71/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.59 0.02 6/14 18/42 55/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.79 0.01 5/14 4/42 32/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.48 0.00 6/14 26/42 76/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.55 -0.01 3/14 18/42 57/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.45 -0.02 6/14 22/42 63/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

North Macedonia Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.58 4.1  0.62 7.1  0.61

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.37
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.48
Independent auditing
1.4  0.34
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.50
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.53
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.68
Right to life & security
4.3  0.56
Due process of law
4.4  0.50
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.73
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.42
Right to privacy
4.7  0.61
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.66
No discrimination
7.3  0.36
No corruption
7.4  0.39
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.51
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.63
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.71

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.39
In the executive branch
2.2  0.49
In the judiciary
2.3  0.67
In the police/military
2.4  0.23
In the legislature
4.8  0.58
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.78
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.60
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.45
Effective investigations
8.2  0.49
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.35
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.46

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.49
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.49
Right to information
3.3  0.51
Civic participation
3.4  0.44
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.51
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.33
6.1  0.45
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.56
6.2  0.48
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.54
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.38
Respect for due process
6.5  0.56
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 119

 Norway
Region: EU & EFTA & North America
Norway Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.89 2/24 2/37 2/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.94 0.00 2/24 2/37 2/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.94 0.00 2/24 2/37 2/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.89 0.00 1/24 1/37 1/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.91 0.01 2/24 2/37 2/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.93 0.00 2/24 4/37 4/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.87 0.00 2/24 2/37 2/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.85 0.00 2/24 2/37 2/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.83 0.00 1/24 1/37 1/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Norway EU & EFTA & North America High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.96 4.1  0.82 7.1  0.70

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.95
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.89
Independent auditing
1.4  0.90
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.95
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.98
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.94
Right to life & security
4.3  0.89
Due process of law
4.4  0.95
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.88
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.90
Right to privacy
4.7  0.96
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.78
No discrimination
7.3  0.96
No corruption
7.4  0.93
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.79
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.89
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.90

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.92
In the executive branch
2.2  0.97
In the judiciary
2.3  0.96
In the police/military
2.4  0.91
In the legislature
4.8  0.92
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.96
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.82
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.61
Effective investigations
8.2  0.77
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.91
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.76

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.88
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.88
Right to information
3.3  0.92
Civic participation
3.4  0.86
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.94
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.95
6.1  0.84
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.89
6.2  0.99
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.81
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.84
Respect for due process
6.5  0.90
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

120
Pakistan
Region: South Asia
Pakistan Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.39 5/6 25/30 120/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 -1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.49 -0.03 4/6 12/30 79/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.31 -0.01 5/6 25/30 116/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.43 -0.02 4/6 16/30 91/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.38 0.00 5/6 23/30 115/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.37 0.01 5/6 29/30 126/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.39 0.01 5/6 25/30 115/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.38 0.01 4/6 24/30 118/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.35 0.00 4/6 19/30 98/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Pakistan South Asia Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.56 4.1  0.37 7.1  0.39

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.50
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.45
Independent auditing
1.4  0.36
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.54
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.51
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.23
Right to life & security
4.3  0.31
Due process of law
4.4  0.54
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.47
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.20
Right to privacy
4.7  0.58
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.39
No discrimination
7.3  0.36
No corruption
7.4  0.49
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.29
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.30
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.46

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.36
In the executive branch
2.2  0.38
In the judiciary
2.3  0.29
In the police/military
2.4  0.21
In the legislature
4.8  0.31
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.60
Absence of crime
5.2  0.19
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.34
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.28
Effective investigations
8.2  0.38
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.33
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.28

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.25
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.39
Right to information
3.3  0.55
Civic participation
3.4  0.52
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.40
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.50
6.1  0.41
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.31
6.2  0.49
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.38
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.18
Respect for due process
6.5  0.51
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 121

 Panama
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Panama Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.52 15/30 37/37 63/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 2 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.54 0.00 16/30 36/37 62/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.42 0.00 19/30 37/37 82/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.59 0.00 8/30 30/37 38/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.64 0.02 12/30 34/37 42/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.66 -0.02 15/30 37/37 90/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.51 0.00 17/30 35/37 61/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.48 -0.01 22/30 36/37 83/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.33 0.02 21/30 36/37 106/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Panama Latin America & Caribbean High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.55 4.1  0.50 7.1  0.58

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.44 4.2  0.73 7.2  0.55
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.46 4.3  0.49 7.3  0.43
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.31 4.4  0.69 7.4  0.41
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.69 4.5  0.71 7.5  0.26
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.77 4.6  0.58 7.6  0.51
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.73 7.7  0.62

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.45
In the executive branch
2.2  0.47
In the judiciary
2.3  0.55
In the police/military
2.4  0.22
In the legislature
4.8  0.68
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.59
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.39
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.32
Effective investigations
8.2  0.33
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.17
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.31

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.41
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.58
Right to information
3.3  0.66
Civic participation
3.4  0.73
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.45
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.25
6.1  0.48
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.49
6.2  0.58
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.55
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.40
Respect for due process
6.5  0.53
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

122
Peru
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Peru Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.5 20/30 30/42 80/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -7 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.60 -0.02 11/30 10/42 48/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.33 0.00 26/30 40/42 111/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.55 0.00 11/30 13/42 47/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.62 0.00 15/30 12/42 46/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.63 -0.02 22/30 34/42 105/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.49 -0.01 19/30 22/42 68/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.45 -0.01 24/30 37/42 100/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.33 0.00 22/30 38/42 107/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Peru Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.71 4.1  0.48 7.1  0.49

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.50
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.54
Independent auditing
1.4  0.40
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.69
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.73
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.73
Right to life & security
4.3  0.44
Due process of law
4.4  0.69
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.74
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.68
Right to privacy
4.7  0.73
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.45
No discrimination
7.3  0.37
No corruption
7.4  0.50
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.19
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.47
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.67

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.37
In the executive branch
2.2  0.44
In the judiciary
2.3  0.39
In the police/military
2.4  0.13
In the legislature
4.8  0.49
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.57
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.31
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.25
Effective investigations
8.2  0.25
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.24
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.43

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.38
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.60
Right to information
3.3  0.61
Civic participation
3.4  0.61
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.32
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.38
6.1  0.51
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.44
6.2  0.57
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.35
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.39
Respect for due process
6.5  0.63
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 123

 Philippines
Region: East Asia & Paci�c
Philippines Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.47 13/15 13/30 91/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.50 -0.02 10/15 9/30 75/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.46 -0.01 11/15 4/30 64/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.52 -0.01 8/15 7/30 55/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.41 -0.01 12/15 18/30 107/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.65 0.05* 15/15 21/30 97/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.48 0.01 10/15 9/30 75/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.46 0.02 12/15 16/30 92/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.31 0.00 13/15 22/30 112/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Philippines East Asia & Paci�c Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.55 4.1  0.43 7.1  0.51

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.53
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.47
Independent auditing
1.4  0.41
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.53
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.53
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.18
Right to life & security
4.3  0.31
Due process of law
4.4  0.53
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.64
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.27
Right to privacy
4.7  0.53
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.44
No discrimination
7.3  0.50
No corruption
7.4  0.39
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.34
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.45
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.59

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.48
In the executive branch
2.2  0.40
In the judiciary
2.3  0.53
In the police/military
2.4  0.41
In the legislature
4.8  0.43
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.67
Absence of crime
5.2  0.77
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.50
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.42
Effective investigations
8.2  0.31
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.19
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.23

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.43
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.64
Right to information
3.3  0.51
Civic participation
3.4  0.49
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.48
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.25
6.1  0.48
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.31
6.2  0.60
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.38
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.43
Respect for due process
6.5  0.53
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

124
Poland
Region: EU & EFTA & North America
Poland Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.66 19/24 27/37 28/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.58 0.00 21/24 32/37 51/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.73 0.01 14/24 20/37 20/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.60 -0.03 22/24 29/37 37/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.64 -0.02 22/24 33/37 39/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.86 0.00 12/24 18/37 19/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.62 0.00 18/24 27/37 29/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.63 -0.01 17/24 29/37 34/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.60 -0.01 17/24 25/37 26/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Poland EU & EFTA & North America High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.47 4.1  0.69 7.1  0.63

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.53 4.2  0.75 7.2  0.81
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.54 4.3  0.64 7.3  0.78
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.56 4.4  0.62 7.4  0.48
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.62 4.5  0.53 7.5  0.39
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.75 4.6  0.59 7.6  0.54
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.63 7.7  0.78

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.64
In the executive branch
2.2  0.88
In the judiciary
2.3  0.87
In the police/military
2.4  0.55
In the legislature
4.8  0.68
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.94
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.63
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.51
Effective investigations
8.2  0.54
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.60
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.65

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.58
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.50
Right to information
3.3  0.61
Civic participation
3.4  0.69
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.80
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.44
6.1  0.63
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.64
6.2  0.89
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.48
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.52
Respect for due process
6.5  0.58
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 125

 Portugal
Region: EU & EFTA & North America
Portugal Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.7 16/24 23/37 23/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.78 -0.01 12/24 14/37 14/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.72 0.00 16/24 23/37 23/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.66 -0.01 16/24 23/37 24/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.78 -0.01 14/24 16/37 17/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.79 0.00 20/24 27/37 37/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.62 -0.02 17/24 26/37 28/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.68 -0.01 14/24 22/37 22/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.59 -0.01 18/24 26/37 27/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Portugal EU & EFTA & North America High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.84 4.1  0.68 7.1  0.69

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.76
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.75
Independent auditing
1.4  0.64
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.80
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.91
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.89
Right to life & security
4.3  0.65
Due process of law
4.4  0.80
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.83
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.83
Right to privacy
4.7  0.85
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.76
No discrimination
7.3  0.79
No corruption
7.4  0.77
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.43
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.53
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.81

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.66
In the executive branch
2.2  0.88
In the judiciary
2.3  0.87
In the police/military
2.4  0.50
In the legislature
4.8  0.69
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.91
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.45
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.48
Effective investigations
8.2  0.44
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.49
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.46

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.56
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.62
Right to information
3.3  0.77
Civic participation
3.4  0.71
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.78
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.84
6.1  0.63
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.65
6.2  0.82
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.45
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.54
Respect for due process
6.5  0.69
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

126
Republic
Republic of
of Korea
Region: East Asia & Paci�c
Korea Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.73 6/15 17/37 17/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.72 0.00 3/15 20/37 21/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.67 -0.01 6/15 26/37 28/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.71 0.01 4/15 20/37 20/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.73 0.00 4/15 21/37 22/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.84 0.00 6/15 21/37 23/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.72 0.00 6/15 19/37 19/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.76 0.00 5/15 13/37 13/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.71 0.00 6/15 18/37 18/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Republic of Korea East Asia & Paci�c High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.68 4.1  0.68 7.1  0.68

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.60 4.2  0.90 7.2  0.70
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.84 4.3  0.78 7.3  0.75
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.68 4.4  0.66 7.4  0.74
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.66 4.5  0.71 7.5  0.82
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.85 4.6  0.83 7.6  0.80
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.70 7.7  0.86

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.70
In the executive branch
2.2  0.88
In the judiciary
2.3  0.76
In the police/military
2.4  0.32
In the legislature
4.8  0.60
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.91
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.61
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.59
Effective investigations
8.2  0.80
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.68
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.73

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.69
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.76
Right to information
3.3  0.66
Civic participation
3.4  0.71
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.66
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.71
6.1  0.57
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.78
6.2  0.87
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.79
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.63
Respect for due process
6.5  0.77
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 127

 Romania
Region: EU & EFTA & North America
Romania Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.63 20/24 3/42 32/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.62 0.00 20/24 6/42 38/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.56 -0.01 22/24 11/42 46/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.61 -0.02 21/24 6/42 35/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.70 0.00 19/24 3/42 28/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.83 -0.01 16/24 2/42 26/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.57 -0.01 21/24 9/42 42/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.62 -0.02 19/24 8/42 39/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.56 -0.01 20/24 5/42 37/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Romania EU & EFTA & North America Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.68 4.1  0.73 7.1  0.57

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.57
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.54
Independent auditing
1.4  0.53
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.67
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.70
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.82
Right to life & security
4.3  0.61
Due process of law
4.4  0.67
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.74
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.61
Right to privacy
4.7  0.65
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.68
No discrimination
7.3  0.62
No corruption
7.4  0.64
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.47
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.61
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.75

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.49
In the executive branch
2.2  0.72
In the judiciary
2.3  0.75
In the police/military
2.4  0.28
In the legislature
4.8  0.75
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.91
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.59
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.55
Effective investigations
8.2  0.50
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.40
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.61

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.60
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.53
Right to information
3.3  0.59
Civic participation
3.4  0.71
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.64
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.59
6.1  0.59
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.61
6.2  0.67
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.50
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.42
Respect for due process
6.5  0.66
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

128
Russian
Russia Federation
Region: Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.47 13/14 36/42 94/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -4 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.36 -0.01 11/14 38/42 115/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.43 -0.02 9/14 33/42 77/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.49 0.00 6/14 24/42 69/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.44 -0.01 12/14 38/42 104/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.66 0.00 14/14 28/42 91/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.49 0.00 5/14 25/42 73/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.54 0.02 5/14 20/42 62/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.31 -0.02 14/14 39/42 110/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Russian
Russia Federation Eastern
Eastern Europe Europe
& Central & Central Asia
Asia Upper MiddleUpper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.36 4.1  0.58 7.1  0.59

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.33
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.37
Independent auditing
1.4  0.33
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.39
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.40
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.45
Right to life & security
4.3  0.36
Due process of law
4.4  0.39
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.54
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.20
Right to privacy
4.7  0.41
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.57
No discrimination
7.3  0.54
No corruption
7.4  0.30
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.74
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.47
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.55

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.41
In the executive branch
2.2  0.55
In the judiciary
2.3  0.51
In the police/military
2.4  0.24
In the legislature
4.8  0.57
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.76
Absence of crime
5.2  0.83
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.39
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.21
Effective investigations
8.2  0.33
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.36
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.38

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.57
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.40
Right to information
3.3  0.39
Civic participation
3.4  0.60
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.45
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.09
6.1  0.55
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.36
6.2  0.55
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.61
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.34
Respect for due process
6.5  0.38
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 129

 Rwanda
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Rwanda Income Group: Low

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.62 2/31 1/19 37/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.01 3 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.60 0.00 6/31 2/19 45/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.63 0.03 1/31 1/19 36/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.58 0.01 2/31 1/19 39/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.51 -0.01 13/31 8/19 81/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.84 0.00 1/31 1/19 22/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.59 0.02 3/31 1/19 37/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.64 0.01 2/31 1/19 30/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.54 -0.01 3/31 1/19 42/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Rwanda Sub-Saharan Africa Low

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.52 4.1  0.66 7.1  0.71

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.58 4.2  0.39 7.2  0.66
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.63 4.3  0.52 7.3  0.51
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.73 4.4  0.45 7.4  0.62
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.45 4.5  0.53 7.5  0.73
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.70 4.6  0.24 7.6  0.65
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.57 7.7  0.58

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.67
In the executive branch
2.2  0.60
In the judiciary
2.3  0.70
In the police/military
2.4  0.55
In the legislature
4.8  0.76
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.75
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.78
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.42
Effective investigations
8.2  0.51
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.50
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.69

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.60
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.61
Right to information
3.3  0.53
Civic participation
3.4  0.60
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.69
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.41
6.1  0.57
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.52
6.2  0.58
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.59
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.52
Respect for due process
6.5  0.70
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

130
Senegal
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Senegal Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.55 7/31 2/30 52/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.56 -0.02 8/31 5/30 54/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.54 -0.01 4/31 1/30 49/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.43 -0.01 12/31 14/30 88/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.60 -0.01 5/31 3/30 51/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.69 0.00 12/31 10/30 76/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.57 0.02 5/31 1/30 44/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.57 0.01 7/31 2/30 51/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.45 0.00 9/31 4/30 64/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Senegal Sub-Saharan Africa Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.53 4.1  0.67 7.1  0.54

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.46 4.2  0.57 7.2  0.68
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.55 4.3  0.45 7.3  0.52
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.50 4.4  0.62 7.4  0.42
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.62 4.5  0.74 7.5  0.63
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.72 4.6  0.35 7.6  0.60
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.71 7.7  0.63

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.47
In the executive branch
2.2  0.60
In the judiciary
2.3  0.67
In the police/military
2.4  0.41
In the legislature
4.8  0.66
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.67
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.40
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.53
Effective investigations
8.2  0.47
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.31
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.57

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.33
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.46
Right to information
3.3  0.62
Civic participation
3.4  0.32
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.58
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.23
6.1  0.54
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.45
6.2  0.66
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.45
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.50
Respect for due process
6.5  0.67
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 131

 Serbia
Region: Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Serbia Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.5 8/14 26/42 75/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 5 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.39 -0.01 10/14 36/42 111/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.44 0.00 7/14 29/42 72/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.47 -0.01 9/14 27/42 76/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.57 0.01 7/14 21/42 62/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.77 0.00 9/14 10/42 42/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.48 0.01 7/14 27/42 77/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.51 0.01 8/14 27/42 73/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.40 0.02 9/14 28/42 77/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Serbia Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.40 4.1  0.65 7.1  0.59

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.34
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.39
Independent auditing
1.4  0.26
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.48
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.46
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.61
Right to life & security
4.3  0.49
Due process of law
4.4  0.48
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.70
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.40
Right to privacy
4.7  0.58
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.69
No discrimination
7.3  0.46
No corruption
7.4  0.36
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.29
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.51
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.64

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.43
In the executive branch
2.2  0.51
In the judiciary
2.3  0.56
In the police/military
2.4  0.26
In the legislature
4.8  0.67
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.87
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.44
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.38
Effective investigations
8.2  0.45
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.42
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.38

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.54
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.46
Right to information
3.3  0.47
Civic participation
3.4  0.40
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.43
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.23
6.1  0.49
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.49
6.2  0.56
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.42
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.40
Respect for due process
6.5  0.54
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

132
Sierra
Sierra Leone
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Leone Income Group: Low

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.45 17/31 10/19 100/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.51 0.00 15/31 9/19 73/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.35 0.00 20/31 12/19 104/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.40 -0.02 17/31 11/19 103/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.51 -0.01 14/31 9/19 85/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.67 -0.02 17/31 10/19 89/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.37 0.00 26/31 15/19 119/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.44 0.03 21/31 10/19 105/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.35 0.00 22/31 11/19 99/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Sierra Leone Sub-Saharan Africa Low

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.58 4.1  0.51 7.1  0.51

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.42
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.51
Independent auditing
1.4  0.42
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.55
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.58
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.43
Right to life & security
4.3  0.40
Due process of law
4.4  0.55
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.73
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.34
Right to privacy
4.7  0.59
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.50
No discrimination
7.3  0.34
No corruption
7.4  0.30
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.41
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.53
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.51

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.37
In the executive branch
2.2  0.35
In the judiciary
2.3  0.36
In the police/military
2.4  0.34
In the legislature
4.8  0.50
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.60
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.39
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.43
Effective investigations
8.2  0.34
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.28
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.44

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.09
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.43
Right to information
3.3  0.54
Civic participation
3.4  0.53
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.37
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.21
6.1  0.41
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.40
6.2  0.40
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.37
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.32
Respect for due process
6.5  0.37
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 133

 Singapore
Region: East Asia & Paci�c
Singapore Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.79 3/15 12/37 12/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.67 -0.02 6/15 25/37 29/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.91 0.00 1/15 3/37 3/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.64 -0.02 6/15 25/37 26/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.68 -0.01 5/15 28/37 32/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.93 0.00 1/15 1/37 1/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.87 0.00 1/15 3/37 3/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.82 -0.01 1/15 6/37 6/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.79 0.00 1/15 6/37 6/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Singapore East Asia & Paci�c High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.48 4.1  0.84 7.1  0.63

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.72
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.70
Independent auditing
1.4  0.90
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.48
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.74
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.80
Right to life & security
4.3  0.74
Due process of law
4.4  0.48
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.81
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.59
Right to privacy
4.7  0.47
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.85
No discrimination
7.3  0.85
No corruption
7.4  0.70
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.93
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.97
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.80

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.91
In the executive branch
2.2  0.91
In the judiciary
2.3  0.94
In the police/military
2.4  0.90
In the legislature
4.8  0.73
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.98
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.81
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.83
Effective investigations
8.2  0.78
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.87
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.81

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.79
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.61
Right to information
3.3  0.51
Civic participation
3.4  0.65
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.91
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.56
6.1  0.83
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.74
6.2  0.96
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.90
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.87
Respect for due process
6.5  0.79
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

134
Slovenia
Region: EU & EFTA & North America
Slovenia Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.69 17/24 24/37 24/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.01 2 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.65 0.01 19/24 26/37 30/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.66 0.01 17/24 27/37 29/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.65 0.00 17/24 24/37 25/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.75 0.02 15/24 19/37 20/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.89 0.00 10/24 15/37 16/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.65 0.01 16/24 24/37 25/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.66 0.03* 16/24 26/37 28/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.56 0.01 19/24 31/37 35/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Slovenia EU & EFTA & North America High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.69 4.1  0.70 7.1  0.70

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.58
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.63
Independent auditing
1.4  0.50
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.71
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.79
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.91
Right to life & security
4.3  0.72
Due process of law
4.4  0.71
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.73
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.74
Right to privacy
4.7  0.77
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.75
No discrimination
7.3  0.66
No corruption
7.4  0.58
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.52
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.62
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.77

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.63
In the executive branch
2.2  0.79
In the judiciary
2.3  0.76
In the police/military
2.4  0.47
In the legislature
4.8  0.77
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.96
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.71
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.42
Effective investigations
8.2  0.53
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.56
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.49

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.67
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.61
Right to information
3.3  0.71
Civic participation
3.4  0.63
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.68
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.52
6.1  0.71
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.72
6.2  0.75
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.70
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.53
Respect for due process
6.5  0.58
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 135

 South
South Africa
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Africa Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.59 5/31 10/42 45/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.01 2 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.63 0.01 3/31 4/42 33/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.48 0.00 6/31 19/42 58/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.62 0.00 1/31 4/42 30/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.64 0.00 2/31 8/42 41/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.61 0.00 22/31 38/42 110/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.56 0.02 6/31 11/42 45/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.61 0.03 4/31 10/42 41/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.53 0.01 5/31 11/42 44/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

South Africa Sub-Saharan Africa Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.58 4.1  0.54 7.1  0.51

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.67
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.63
Independent auditing
1.4  0.47
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.71
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.71
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.62
Right to life & security
4.3  0.54
Due process of law
4.4  0.71
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.73
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.57
Right to privacy
4.7  0.74
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.49
No discrimination
7.3  0.69
No corruption
7.4  0.67
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.54
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.61
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.77

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.40
In the executive branch
2.2  0.73
In the judiciary
2.3  0.57
In the police/military
2.4  0.23
In the legislature
4.8  0.66
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.48
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.35
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.39
Effective investigations
8.2  0.52
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.33
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.55

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.54
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.53
Right to information
3.3  0.70
Civic participation
3.4  0.72
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.59
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.76
6.1  0.44
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.54
6.2  0.62
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.52
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.63
Respect for due process
6.5  0.62
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

136
Spain
Region: EU & EFTA & North America
Spain Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.73 13/24 19/37 19/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.01 2 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.74 0.02 13/24 16/37 17/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.73 0.01 15/24 21/37 21/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.71 0.01 14/24 19/37 19/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.79 0.00 13/24 15/37 16/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.82 0.00 17/24 23/37 27/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.70 0.02 15/24 22/37 22/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.67 0.00 15/24 24/37 25/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.67 0.01 13/24 20/37 20/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Spain EU & EFTA & North America High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.76 4.1  0.71 7.1  0.73

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.66
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.75
Independent auditing
1.4  0.66
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.72
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.87
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.86
Right to life & security
4.3  0.79
Due process of law
4.4  0.72
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.77
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.87
Right to privacy
4.7  0.82
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.70
No discrimination
7.3  0.72
No corruption
7.4  0.68
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.51
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.55
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.80

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.68
In the executive branch
2.2  0.88
In the judiciary
2.3  0.88
In the police/military
2.4  0.49
In the legislature
4.8  0.74
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.86
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.60
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.59
Effective investigations
8.2  0.56
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.71
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.63

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.71
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.66
Right to information
3.3  0.71
Civic participation
3.4  0.76
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.76
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.65
6.1  0.67
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.79
6.2  0.83
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.58
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.76
Respect for due process
6.5  0.67
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 137

 Sri
Sri Lanka
Region: South Asia
Lanka Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.52 2/6 21/42 66/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 -2 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.55 0.01 3/6 15/42 60/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.47 0.01 1/6 21/42 61/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.51 0.01 3/6 17/42 59/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.54 0.00 1/6 25/42 72/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.71 0.00 2/6 24/42 70/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.47 -0.02 3/6 28/42 79/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.45 -0.02 3/6 36/42 99/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.44 0.00 1/6 23/42 65/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Sri Lanka South Asia Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.56 4.1  0.56 7.1  0.45

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.61
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.45
Independent auditing
1.4  0.40
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.63
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.69
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.40
Right to life & security
4.3  0.39
Due process of law
4.4  0.63
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.66
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.38
Right to privacy
4.7  0.69
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.43
No discrimination
7.3  0.60
No corruption
7.4  0.49
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.28
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.35
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.55

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.43
In the executive branch
2.2  0.59
In the judiciary
2.3  0.56
In the police/military
2.4  0.30
In the legislature
4.8  0.61
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.82
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.30
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.41
Effective investigations
8.2  0.35
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.36
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.50

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.42
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.46
Right to information
3.3  0.61
Civic participation
3.4  0.54
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.63
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.49
6.1  0.53
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.39
6.2  0.53
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.38
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.39
Respect for due process
6.5  0.54
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

138
St. Kitts and
and Nevis
Nevis
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
St. Kitts Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.63 6/30 30/37 33/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -3 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.62 -0.02 7/30 30/37 36/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.64 -0.03 7/30 29/37 33/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.44 0.03 25/30 36/37 87/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.70 -0.02 6/30 26/37 29/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.78 -0.02 3/30 29/37 41/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.61 0.00 4/30 28/37 31/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.69 -0.06 2/30 21/37 21/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.59 0.02 3/30 27/37 28/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

St. Kitts and Nevis Latin America & Caribbean High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.61 4.1  0.67 7.1  0.66

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.70
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.59
Independent auditing
1.4  0.47
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.65
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.69
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.86
Right to life & security
4.3  0.62
Due process of law
4.4  0.65
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.65
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.75
Right to privacy
4.7  0.70
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.67
No discrimination
7.3  0.78
No corruption
7.4  0.83
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.55
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.52
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.79

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.48
In the executive branch
2.2  0.89
In the judiciary
2.3  0.77
In the police/military
2.4  0.42
In the legislature
4.8  0.71
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.81
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.51
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.44
Effective investigations
8.2  0.55
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.36
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.63

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.19
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.39
Right to information
3.3  0.62
Civic participation
3.4  0.56
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.75
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.77
6.1  0.52
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.62
6.2  0.75
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.53
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.60
Respect for due process
6.5  0.65
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 139

 St. Lucia
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
St. Lucia Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.62 8/30 5/42 36/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 2 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.59 0.00 12/30 11/42 49/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.64 0.00 8/30 5/42 34/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.49 0.00 21/30 23/42 67/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.66 0.00 9/30 6/42 35/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.74 0.02 7/30 17/42 57/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.60 0.02 7/30 5/42 36/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.68 0.02 3/30 1/42 23/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.55 -0.02 10/30 9/42 41/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

St. Lucia Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.62 4.1  0.78 7.1  0.62

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.70
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.40
Independent auditing
1.4  0.47
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.65
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.72
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.74
Right to life & security
4.3  0.53
Due process of law
4.4  0.65
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.67
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.53
Right to privacy
4.7  0.71
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.77
No discrimination
7.3  0.79
No corruption
7.4  0.76
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.50
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.46
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.85

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.56
In the executive branch
2.2  0.88
In the judiciary
2.3  0.71
In the police/military
2.4  0.40
In the legislature
4.8  0.69
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.78
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.45
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.40
Effective investigations
8.2  0.37
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.48
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.62

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.27
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.52
Right to information
3.3  0.64
Civic participation
3.4  0.55
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.71
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.74
6.1  0.51
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.53
6.2  0.73
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.37
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.65
Respect for due process
6.5  0.72
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

140
St. Vincent and
and the Grenadines
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
St. Vincent the Grenadines Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.64 5/30 2/42 31/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.02 4 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.62 0.03 8/30 5/42 37/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.70 0.00 2/30 1/42 24/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.52 0.02 14/30 16/42 54/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.70 0.02 5/30 2/42 27/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.75 0.01 5/30 16/42 54/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.57 0.03 8/30 10/42 43/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.64 0.02 6/30 4/42 32/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.61 0.00 2/30 1/42 25/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

St. Vincent and the Grenadines Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.58 4.1  0.66 7.1  0.67

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.61
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.67
Independent auditing
1.4  0.56
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.61
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.67
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.83
Right to life & security
4.3  0.61
Due process of law
4.4  0.61
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.82
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.73
Right to privacy
4.7  0.71
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.64
No discrimination
7.3  0.75
No corruption
7.4  0.65
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.44
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.48
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.82

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.62
In the executive branch
2.2  0.85
In the judiciary
2.3  0.78
In the police/military
2.4  0.54
In the legislature
4.8  0.63
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.77
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.48
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.45
Effective investigations
8.2  0.56
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.57
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.55

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.26
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.58
Right to information
3.3  0.63
Civic participation
3.4  0.62
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.74
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.75
6.1  0.53
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.61
6.2  0.77
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.49
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.47
Respect for due process
6.5  0.58
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 141

 Suriname
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Suriname Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.5 18/30 27/42 76/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -5 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.48 -0.01 22/30 24/42 81/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.45 -0.06 16/30 25/42 68/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.39 0.02 28/30 38/42 104/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.55 0.00 19/30 23/42 66/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.65 -0.01 18/30 30/42 98/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.47 0.00 21/30 29/42 81/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.49 -0.02 20/30 29/42 78/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.52 -0.01 11/30 12/42 45/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Suriname Latin America & Caribbean Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.48 4.1  0.54 7.1  0.48

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.59
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.30
Independent auditing
1.4  0.37
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.59
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.57
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.61
Right to life & security
4.3  0.45
Due process of law
4.4  0.59
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.66
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.41
Right to privacy
4.7  0.65
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.55
No discrimination
7.3  0.69
No corruption
7.4  0.51
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.26
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.49
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.48

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.40
In the executive branch
2.2  0.66
In the judiciary
2.3  0.53
In the police/military
2.4  0.21
In the legislature
4.8  0.51
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.74
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.20
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.43
Effective investigations
8.2  0.53
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.35
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.57

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.32
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.30
Right to information
3.3  0.56
Civic participation
3.4  0.38
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.58
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.73
6.1  0.46
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.45
6.2  0.62
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.37
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.43
Respect for due process
6.5  0.47
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

142
Sweden
Region: EU & EFTA & North America
Sweden Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.86 4/24 4/37 4/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.87 0.00 4/24 4/37 4/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.91 0.00 3/24 4/37 4/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.86 0.00 3/24 3/37 3/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.87 0.00 4/24 4/37 4/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.92 0.00 3/24 6/37 6/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.84 0.00 6/24 8/37 8/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.82 0.02 5/24 5/37 5/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.80 -0.01 4/24 4/37 4/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Sweden EU & EFTA & North America High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.81 4.1  0.73 7.1  0.76

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.83
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.97
Independent auditing
1.4  0.84
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.85
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.93
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.99
Right to life & security
4.3  0.92
Due process of law
4.4  0.85
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.84
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.97
Right to privacy
4.7  0.87
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.70
No discrimination
7.3  0.91
No corruption
7.4  0.90
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.80
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.91
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.79

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.87
In the executive branch
2.2  0.98
In the judiciary
2.3  0.97
In the police/military
2.4  0.82
In the legislature
4.8  0.77
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.89
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.87
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.53
Effective investigations
8.2  0.71
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.83
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.78

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.78
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.92
Right to information
3.3  0.85
Civic participation
3.4  0.89
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.92
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.92
6.1  0.78
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.92
6.2  0.93
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.84
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.79
Respect for due process
6.5  0.89
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 143

 Tanzania
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Tanzania Income Group: Low

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.47 12/31 7/19 93/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.51 -0.01 14/31 8/19 72/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.42 0.00 12/31 6/19 81/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.38 0.00 18/31 12/19 105/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.43 -0.02 22/31 14/19 105/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.69 0.00 13/31 8/19 78/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.44 0.02 16/31 9/19 94/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.50 0.02 12/31 4/19 76/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.38 0.00 15/31 7/19 81/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Tanzania Sub-Saharan Africa Low

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.55 4.1  0.56 7.1  0.48

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.53
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.48
Independent auditing
1.4  0.55
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.42
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.52
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.31
Right to life & security
4.3  0.32
Due process of law
4.4  0.42
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.58
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.23
Right to privacy
4.7  0.50
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.58
No discrimination
7.3  0.44
No corruption
7.4  0.44
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.40
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.51
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.63

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.47
In the executive branch
2.2  0.42
In the judiciary
2.3  0.37
In the police/military
2.4  0.42
In the legislature
4.8  0.55
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.68
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.38
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.36
Effective investigations
8.2  0.41
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.28
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.47

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.25
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.46
Right to information
3.3  0.48
Civic participation
3.4  0.36
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.43
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.40
6.1  0.57
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.32
6.2  0.49
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.38
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.29
Respect for due process
6.5  0.48
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

144
Thailand
Region: East Asia & Paci�c
Thailand Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.51 10/15 24/42 71/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 6 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.48 0.01 11/15 25/42 82/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.49 0.00 9/15 17/42 54/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.51 0.02 9/15 19/42 61/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.49 0.01 10/15 33/42 90/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.71 0.00 11/15 22/42 67/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.47 -0.01 12/15 30/42 83/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.48 -0.01 10/15 32/42 84/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.43 0.01 11/15 26/42 70/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Thailand East Asia & Paci�c Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.52 4.1  0.54 7.1  0.58

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.60 4.2  0.40 7.2  0.49
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.43 4.3  0.42 7.3  0.68
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.47 4.4  0.54 7.4  0.52
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.54 4.5  0.58 7.5  0.26
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.35 4.6  0.38 7.6  0.33
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.47 7.7  0.49

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.46
In the executive branch
2.2  0.71
In the judiciary
2.3  0.49
In the police/military
2.4  0.30
In the legislature
4.8  0.58
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.80
Absence of crime
5.2  0.83
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.51
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.42
Effective investigations
8.2  0.43
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.30
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.31

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.44
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.45
Right to information
3.3  0.53
Civic participation
3.4  0.61
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.61
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.54
6.1  0.52
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.42
6.2  0.52
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.49
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.32
Respect for due process
6.5  0.49
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 145

 Togo
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Togo Income Group: Low

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.45 16/31 9/19 99/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 3 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.36 0.00 29/31 19/19 117/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.43 0.01 9/31 4/19 78/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.30 -0.01 30/31 19/19 123/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.46 -0.03 19/31 13/19 97/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.73 0.00 5/31 3/19 61/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.49 0.00 11/31 5/19 71/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.48 0.01 13/31 6/19 85/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.36 0.00 20/31 9/19 94/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Togo Sub-Saharan Africa Low

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.45 4.1  0.62 7.1  0.56

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.31 4.2  0.40 7.2  0.63
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.30 4.3  0.39 7.3  0.35
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.32 4.4  0.39 7.4  0.27
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.39 4.5  0.73 7.5  0.49
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.37 4.6  0.18 7.6  0.44
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.44 7.7  0.60

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.45
In the executive branch
2.2  0.45
In the judiciary
2.3  0.46
In the police/military
2.4  0.36
In the legislature
4.8  0.52
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.76
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.44
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.28
Effective investigations
8.2  0.36
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.29
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.55

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.21
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.26
Right to information
3.3  0.38
Civic participation
3.4  0.35
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.37
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.26
6.1  0.48
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.39
6.2  0.63
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.39
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.48
Respect for due process
6.5  0.46
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

146
Trinidad
Trinidadand
andTobago
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Tobago Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.54 14/30 35/37 55/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.56 0.00 14/30 34/37 55/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.49 -0.01 14/30 36/37 55/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.56 0.00 10/30 31/37 45/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.59 0.00 16/30 35/37 56/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.68 0.01 13/30 35/37 85/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.51 0.00 15/30 34/37 59/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.58 0.01 12/30 32/37 49/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.32 -0.03 23/30 37/37 109/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Trinidad and Tobago Latin America & Caribbean High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.66 4.1  0.62 7.1  0.58

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.67
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.33
Independent auditing
1.4  0.36
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.65
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.70
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.55
Right to life & security
4.3  0.36
Due process of law
4.4  0.65
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.73
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.41
Right to privacy
4.7  0.73
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.63
No discrimination
7.3  0.72
No corruption
7.4  0.71
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.34
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.43
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.68

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.44
In the executive branch
2.2  0.70
In the judiciary
2.3  0.56
In the police/military
2.4  0.25
In the legislature
4.8  0.66
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.70
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.33
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.21
Effective investigations
8.2  0.22
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.15
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.33

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.38
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.54
Right to information
3.3  0.66
Civic participation
3.4  0.66
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.56
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.44
6.1  0.41
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.36
6.2  0.68
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.37
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.51
Respect for due process
6.5  0.61
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 147

 Tunisia
Region: Middle East & North Africa
Tunisia Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.54 3/8 3/30 56/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 3 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.61 0.01 1/8 4/30 42/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.49 0.01 3/8 2/30 56/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.49 -0.01 1/8 9/30 68/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.57 0.01 1/8 5/30 63/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.68 0.01 5/8 11/30 80/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.53 0.00 4/8 5/30 52/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.50 0.01 6/8 9/30 74/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.42 -0.01 4/8 6/30 74/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Tunisia Middle East & North Africa Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.66 4.1  0.63 7.1  0.58

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.50 4.2  0.59 7.2  0.61
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.62 4.3  0.46 7.3  0.38
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.48 4.4  0.65 7.4  0.55
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.65 4.5  0.60 7.5  0.44
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.76 4.6  0.42 7.6  0.38
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.69 7.7  0.58

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.53
In the executive branch
2.2  0.46
In the judiciary
2.3  0.57
In the police/military
2.4  0.38
In the legislature
4.8  0.52
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.77
Absence of crime
5.2  0.92
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.37
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.43
Effective investigations
8.2  0.46
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.36
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.35

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.37
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.48
Right to information
3.3  0.62
Civic participation
3.4  0.51
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.46
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.39
6.1  0.52
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.46
6.2  0.62
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.40
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.51
Respect for due process
6.5  0.61
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

148
Turkey
Region: Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Turkey Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.43 14/14 40/42 107/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 3 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.30 0.01 14/14 41/42 124/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.47 -0.01 4/14 20/42 60/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.42 0.00 12/14 35/42 97/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.32 0.00 14/14 39/42 123/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.69 0.02 13/14 26/42 77/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.41 -0.01 14/14 41/42 110/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.44 0.00 14/14 38/42 103/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.38 0.00 10/14 30/42 85/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Turkey Eastern Europe & Central Asia Upper Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.37 4.1  0.37 7.1  0.55

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.32
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.19
Independent auditing
1.4  0.30
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.26
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.35
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.35
Right to life & security
4.3  0.41
Due process of law
4.4  0.26
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.21
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.25
Right to privacy
4.7  0.30
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.26
No discrimination
7.3  0.51
No corruption
7.4  0.22
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.30
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.59
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.67

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.45
In the executive branch
2.2  0.58
In the judiciary
2.3  0.67
In the police/military
2.4  0.19
In the legislature
4.8  0.39
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.78
Absence of crime
5.2  0.75
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.54
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.44
Effective investigations
8.2  0.36
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.38
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.32

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.48
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.50
Right to information
3.3  0.28
Civic participation
3.4  0.42
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.59
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.13
6.1  0.40
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.41
6.2  0.62
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.42
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.16
Respect for due process
6.5  0.46
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 149

 Uganda
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Uganda Income Group: Low

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.4 27/31 17/19 117/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -2 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.40 -0.01 23/31 14/19 105/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.26 0.00 29/31 18/19 125/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.40 0.00 16/31 10/19 102/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.37 -0.01 28/31 18/19 117/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.59 0.00 25/31 15/19 113/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.42 0.00 20/31 11/19 106/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.43 -0.02 24/31 13/19 108/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.31 -0.02 26/31 15/19 113/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Uganda Sub-Saharan Africa Low

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.42 4.1  0.44 7.1  0.40

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.40
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.46
Independent auditing
1.4  0.38
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.39
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.35
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.24
Right to life & security
4.3  0.30
Due process of law
4.4  0.39
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.61
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.07
Right to privacy
4.7  0.48
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.39
No discrimination
7.3  0.34
No corruption
7.4  0.47
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.33
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.48
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.60

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.28
In the executive branch
2.2  0.33
In the judiciary
2.3  0.23
In the police/military
2.4  0.19
In the legislature
4.8  0.39
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.54
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.24
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.29
Effective investigations
8.2  0.37
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.39
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.25

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.15
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.44
Right to information
3.3  0.45
Civic participation
3.4  0.57
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.28
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.30
6.1  0.38
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.30
6.2  0.37
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.38
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.38
Respect for due process
6.5  0.60
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

150
Ukraine
Region: Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Ukraine Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.51 7/14 7/30 72/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 6 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.46 0.00 5/14 14/30 90/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.33 0.00 13/14 21/30 110/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.57 0.02 2/14 2/30 42/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.61 0.00 2/14 2/30 49/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.75 0.02 12/14 6/30 52/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.43 0.01 12/14 17/30 100/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.54 0.00 4/14 5/30 61/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.36 -0.01 12/14 16/30 90/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Ukraine Eastern Europe & Central Asia Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.57 4.1  0.67 7.1  0.62

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.32 4.2  0.61 7.2  0.69
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.40 4.3  0.44 7.3  0.41
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.28 4.4  0.61 7.4  0.37
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.61 4.5  0.76 7.5  0.56
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.61 4.6  0.43 7.6  0.48
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.65 7.7  0.63

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.32
In the executive branch
2.2  0.49
In the judiciary
2.3  0.42
In the police/military
2.4  0.09
In the legislature
4.8  0.66
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.75
Absence of crime
5.2  0.94
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.57
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.26
Effective investigations
8.2  0.38
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.38
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.50

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.60
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.51
Right to information
3.3  0.59
Civic participation
3.4  0.56
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.31
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.26
6.1  0.43
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.44
6.2  0.42
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.55
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.40
Respect for due process
6.5  0.37
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 151

 United Arab Emirates
Emirates
Region: Middle East & North Africa
United Arab Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.65 1/8 29/37 30/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 2 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.56 0.01 2/8 35/37 59/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.80 0.00 1/8 16/37 16/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.36 0.00 5/8 37/37 113/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.46 0.00 5/8 37/37 98/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.91 0.00 1/8 7/37 7/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.73 0.00 1/8 18/37 18/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.68 0.01 1/8 23/37 24/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.67 0.00 1/8 19/37 19/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

United Arab Emirates Middle East & North Africa High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.52 4.1  0.64 7.1  0.59

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.55
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.69
Independent auditing
1.4  0.71
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.33
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.54
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.50
Right to life & security
4.3  0.72
Due process of law
4.4  0.33
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.45
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.32
Right to privacy
4.7  0.26
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.63
No discrimination
7.3  0.83
No corruption
7.4  0.64
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.68
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.68
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.69

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.77
In the executive branch
2.2  0.88
In the judiciary
2.3  0.84
In the police/military
2.4  0.70
In the legislature
4.8  0.45
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.92
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.82
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.71
Effective investigations
8.2  0.70
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.77
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.57

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.37
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.33
Right to information
3.3  0.32
Civic participation
3.4  0.42
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.80
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.45
6.1  0.65
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.72
6.2  0.88
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.77
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.67
Respect for due process
6.5  0.65
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

152
United
United Kingdom
Region: EU & EFTA & North America
Kingdom Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.79 10/24 13/37 13/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.82 -0.01 11/24 13/37 13/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.82 0.00 7/24 10/37 10/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.79 -0.01 9/24 11/37 11/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.79 -0.03 11/24 13/37 13/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.84 -0.01 15/24 22/37 24/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.81 -0.01 9/24 13/37 13/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.71 -0.02 10/24 17/37 17/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.72 -0.02 9/24 12/37 12/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

United Kingdom EU & EFTA & North America High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.86 4.1  0.67 7.1  0.52

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.82
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.80
Independent auditing
1.4  0.76
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.84
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.86
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.91
Right to life & security
4.3  0.78
Due process of law
4.4  0.84
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.85
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.76
Right to privacy
4.7  0.89
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.56
No discrimination
7.3  0.91
No corruption
7.4  0.83
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.66
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.70
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.79

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.84
In the executive branch
2.2  0.96
In the judiciary
2.3  0.85
In the police/military
2.4  0.64
In the legislature
4.8  0.65
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.89
Absence of crime
5.2  0.92
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.70
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.67
Effective investigations
8.2  0.73
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.56
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.62

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.89
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.67
Right to information
3.3  0.83
Civic participation
3.4  0.77
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.86
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.85
6.1  0.76
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.78
6.2  0.94
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.77
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.81
Respect for due process
6.5  0.77
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 153

 United States
Region: EU & EFTA & North America
United States Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.72 15/24 21/37 21/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 -1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.71 -0.02 16/24 21/37 22/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.74 0.00 13/24 19/37 19/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.78 0.00 11/24 13/37 13/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.72 0.00 18/24 25/37 26/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.81 0.01 18/24 24/37 28/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.71 -0.01 13/24 20/37 20/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.62 -0.01 18/24 30/37 36/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.63 0.00 15/24 22/37 22/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

United States EU & EFTA & North America High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.77 4.1  0.51 7.1  0.45

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.73
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.66
Independent auditing
1.4  0.63
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.79
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.70
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.85
Right to life & security
4.3  0.63
Due process of law
4.4  0.79
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.74
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.82
Right to privacy
4.7  0.86
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.39
No discrimination
7.3  0.81
No corruption
7.4  0.70
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.62
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.68
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.72

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.73
In the executive branch
2.2  0.89
In the judiciary
2.3  0.83
In the police/military
2.4  0.50
In the legislature
4.8  0.56
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.84
Absence of crime
5.2  0.92
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.68
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.67
Effective investigations
8.2  0.68
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.53
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.37

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.77
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.74
Right to information
3.3  0.79
Civic participation
3.4  0.80
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.78
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.76
6.1  0.69
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.63
6.2  0.88
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.56
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.73
Respect for due process
6.5  0.70
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

154
Uruguay
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Uruguay Income Group: High

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.71 1/30 22/37 22/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.76 0.01 2/30 15/37 16/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.73 -0.01 1/30 22/37 22/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.72 0.00 1/30 16/37 16/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.78 0.01 2/30 17/37 18/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.69 -0.01 11/30 34/37 74/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.70 0.01 1/30 23/37 23/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.74 -0.01 1/30 16/37 16/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.56 0.03 6/30 29/37 33/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Uruguay Latin America & Caribbean High

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.79 4.1  0.70 7.1  0.82

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.72 4.2  0.85 7.2  0.84
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.69 4.3  0.63 7.3  0.81
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.67 4.4  0.78 7.4  0.75
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.78 4.5  0.85 7.5  0.58
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.90 4.6  0.78 7.6  0.65
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.84 7.7  0.74

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.65
In the executive branch
2.2  0.91
In the judiciary
2.3  0.82
In the police/military
2.4  0.53
In the legislature
4.8  0.80
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.67
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.42
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.39
Effective investigations
8.2  0.53
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.28
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.61

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.72
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.62
Right to information
3.3  0.77
Civic participation
3.4  0.75
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.78
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.73
6.1  0.66
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.63
6.2  0.82
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.58
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.62
Respect for due process
6.5  0.82
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 155

 Uzbekistan
Region: Eastern Europe & Central Asia
Uzbekistan Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.47 12/14 14/30 92/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.01 4 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.33 0.01 13/14 25/30 120/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.40 0.02 10/14 10/30 89/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.33 0.02 14/14 26/30 120/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.41 0.02 13/14 19/30 110/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.90 0.00 1/14 1/30 11/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.44 0.00 9/14 15/30 96/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.51 0.00 7/14 8/30 72/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.44 0.00 7/14 5/30 66/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Uzbekistan Eastern Europe & Central Asia Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.15 4.1  0.57 7.1  0.46

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.20
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.37
Independent auditing
1.4  0.45
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.33
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.50
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.51
Right to life & security
4.3  0.38
Due process of law
4.4  0.33
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.58
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.28
Right to privacy
4.7  0.17
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.61
No discrimination
7.3  0.34
No corruption
7.4  0.29
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.75
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.45
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.67

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.32
In the executive branch
2.2  0.44
In the judiciary
2.3  0.39
In the police/military
2.4  0.46
In the legislature
4.8  0.47
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.89
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.81
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.45
Effective investigations
8.2  0.70
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.57
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.38

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.27
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.29
Right to information
3.3  0.26
Civic participation
3.4  0.51
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.39
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.23
6.1  0.62
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.38
6.2  0.46
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.58
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.27
Respect for due process
6.5  0.29
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

156
Venezuela,
Venezuela RB
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Income Group: Upper Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.27 30/30 42/42 128/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.17 -0.01 30/30 42/42 128/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.31 -0.01 28/30 41/42 117/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.28 -0.01 30/30 42/42 125/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.31 -0.02* 30/30 40/42 124/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.48 0.01 30/30 42/42 123/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.20 0.00 30/30 42/42 128/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.27 0.00 30/30 42/42 127/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.13 -0.01 30/30 42/42 128/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Venezuela,
VenezuelaRB Latin
Latin America
America & Caribbean
& Caribbean UpperUpper
MiddleMiddle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.32 4.1  0.51 7.1  0.46

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.12
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.06
Independent auditing
1.4  0.12
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.24
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.19
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.10
Right to life & security
4.3  0.18
Due process of law
4.4  0.24
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.60
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.03
Right to privacy
4.7  0.29
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.52
No discrimination
7.3  0.16
No corruption
7.4  0.05
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.07
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.21
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.46

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.29
In the executive branch
2.2  0.16
In the judiciary
2.3  0.37
In the police/military
2.4  0.42
In the legislature
4.8  0.54
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.26
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.19
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.12
Effective investigations
8.2  0.12
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.05
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.13

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.18
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.25
Right to information
3.3  0.26
Civic participation
3.4  0.42
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.28
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.02
6.1  0.32
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.18
6.2  0.40
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.11
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.01
Respect for due process
6.5  0.14
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 157

 Vietnam
Region: East Asia & Paci�c
Vietnam Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.49 11/15 11/30 85/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
0.00 -2 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.45 0.00 12/15 17/30 95/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.42 0.01 13/15 8/30 84/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.46 0.01 11/15 12/30 78/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.46 0.00 11/15 14/30 101/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.77 -0.01 9/15 3/30 44/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.45 0.01 14/15 12/30 89/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.46 0.01 11/15 14/30 89/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.46 0.00 9/15 3/30 60/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Vietnam East Asia & Paci�c Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.38 4.1  0.60 7.1  0.49

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.36 4.2  0.47 7.2  0.59
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.52 4.3  0.44 7.3  0.35
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.60 4.4  0.40 7.4  0.33
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.40 4.5  0.30 7.5  0.50
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.45 4.6  0.47 7.6  0.40
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.37 7.7  0.59

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.48
In the executive branch
2.2  0.38
In the judiciary
2.3  0.44
In the police/military
2.4  0.37
In the legislature
4.8  0.61
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.90
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.41
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.47
Effective investigations
8.2  0.54
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.46
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.52

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.54
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.35
Right to information
3.3  0.42
Civic participation
3.4  0.54
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.51
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.28
6.1  0.59
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.44
6.2  0.42
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.48
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.38
Respect for due process
6.5  0.41
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

158
Zambia
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Zambia Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.45 14/31 16/30 97/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -3 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.46 -0.03 19/31 16/30 94/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.38 -0.02 17/31 14/30 97/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.38 0.00 19/31 20/30 106/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.42 -0.03 23/31 17/30 106/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.69 0.00 11/31 9/30 75/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.43 0.00 19/31 20/30 105/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.47 0.00 14/31 13/30 88/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.41 -0.03 12/31 7/30 75/128

2020 Score 2019 Score2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Zambia Sub-Saharan Africa Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.46 4.1  0.50 7.1  0.47

Limits by legislature No discrimination Accessibility & affordability
1.2  0.37 4.2  0.36 7.2  0.41
Limits by judiciary Right to life & security No discrimination
1.3  0.48 4.3  0.39 7.3  0.41
Independent auditing Due process of law No corruption
1.4  0.55 4.4  0.39 7.4  0.44
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct Freedom of expression No improper gov't in�uence
1.5  0.39 4.5  0.63 7.5  0.40
Non-governmental checks Freedom of religion No unreasonable delay
1.6  0.48 4.6  0.23 7.6  0.67
Lawful transition of power Right to privacy Effective enforcement
4.7  0.38 7.7  0.49

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.40
In the executive branch
2.2  0.53
In the judiciary
2.3  0.35
In the police/military
2.4  0.24
In the legislature
4.8  0.46
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.62
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.45
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.48
Effective investigations
8.2  0.46
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.25
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.48

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.25
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.44
Right to information
3.3  0.42
Civic participation
3.4  0.42
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.39
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.41
6.1  0.49
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.39
6.2  0.41
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.42
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.38
Respect for due process
6.5  0.43
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 159

 Zimbabwe
Region: Sub-Saharan Africa
Zimbabwe Income Group: Lower Middle

The scores range from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Overall Score Regional Rank Income Rank Global Rank
Constraints on
0.39 28/31 24/30 119/128 Government
Powers
8.7 1.1 1.2
Score Change Rank Change Criminal 8.6
8.6
8.7 1.1 1.2 1.3
1.3
8.5 1.4
Justice 8.5 1.4
8.4
8.4 1.5
1.5
-0.01 -1 8.3
8.3 1.6
1.6
8.2
8.2 2.1
2.1 Absence of
Factor Score Regional Income Global 8.1
8.1 2.2 Corruption
2.2
Score Change Rank Rank Rank 0.5
7.7
7.7 2.3
2.3
Constraints on
0.33 -0.01 31/31 27/30 122/128 7.6
7.6 2.4
2.4
Government Powers
7.5
7.5 3.1
3.1
Absence of Corruption 0.32 0.01 24/31 24/30 115/128 0
7.4
7.4 3.2
3.2
Civil Open
Justice 7.3
7.3 3.3
3.3 Government
Open Government 0.32 -0.02 29/31 27/30 122/128
7.2
7.2 3.4
3.4

Fundamental Rights 0.34 -0.01 31/31 27/30 121/128 7.1

7.1 4.1
4.1

6.5
6.5 4.2
4.2
Order and Security 0.67 0.00 16/31 15/30 87/128 6.4
6.4 4.3
4.3
6.3
6.3 4.4
4.4
Regulatory Enforcement 0.36 -0.02 29/31 28/30 124/128 6.2
6.2 4.5
4.5
Regulatory 6.1
6.1 4.6
4.6
Enforcement 5.3
5.3 5.2
4.7
4.7 Fundamental
5.2 5.1 4.8
4.8
5.1
Rights
Civil Justice 0.45 -0.01 18/31 19/30 101/128 Order and
Security
Criminal Justice 0.37 0.00 17/31 14/30 88/128

2020 Score 2019 Score 2018-2019 Score

2019-2020 Score
* Indicates statistically signi�cant change at the
Low Medium High
10 percent level

Zimbabwe Sub-Saharan Africa Lower Middle

Constraints on Government Powers Fundamental Rights Civil Justice

1.1  0.32 4.1  0.45 7.1  0.40

Limits by legislature
1.2  0.32
Limits by judiciary
1.3  0.46
Independent auditing
1.4  0.35
Sanctions for of�cial misconduct
1.5  0.27
Non-governmental checks
1.6  0.24
Lawful transition of power
No discrimination
4.2  0.26
Right to life & security
4.3  0.36
Due process of law
4.4  0.27
Freedom of expression
4.5  0.49
Freedom of religion
4.6  0.11
Right to privacy
4.7  0.30
Accessibility & affordability
7.2  0.41
No discrimination
7.3  0.42
No corruption
7.4  0.27
No improper gov't in�uence
7.5  0.49
No unreasonable delay
7.6  0.62
Effective enforcement
7.7  0.53

Absence of Corruption Freedom of association Impartial & effective ADRs

2.1  0.31
In the executive branch
2.2  0.43
In the judiciary
2.3  0.31
In the police/military
2.4  0.22
In the legislature
4.8  0.47
Labor rights
Order and Security
5.1  0.63
Absence of crime
5.2  1.00
Absence of civil con�ict
5.3  0.39
Criminal Justice
8.1  0.41
Effective investigations
8.2  0.52
Timely & effective adjudication
8.3  0.35
Effective correctional system
8.4  0.35

Open Government Absence of violent redress No discrimination

3.1  0.17
Publicized laws & gov't data
3.2  0.37
Right to information
3.3  0.28
Civic participation
3.4  0.45
Complaint mechanisms
8.5  0.34
Regulatory Enforcement No corruption
8.6  0.23
6.1  0.43
No improper gov't in�uence
Effective regulatory enforcement
8.7  0.36
6.2  0.48
Due process of law
No improper in�uence
6.3  0.30
No unreasonable delay
6.4  0.32
Respect for due process
6.5  0.26
No expropriation w/out adequate compensation

160
 Behind
the Numbers
 Methodology Snapshot:
Steps to Produce the WJP Rule of Law Index
The production of the WJP Rule of Law Index can be summarized in 11 steps:

1 The WJP developed the conceptual framework summarized in the Index’s nine factors
and 47 sub-factors, in consultation with academics, practitioners, and community leaders
from around the world.

2 The Index team developed a set of five questionnaires based on the Index’s conceptual
framework to be administered to experts and the general public. Questionnaires were
translated into several languages and adapted to reflect commonly used terms and
expressions.

3 The Index team identified, on average, more than 300 potential local experts per country
to respond to the QRQs and engaged the services of leading local polling companies to
implement the household surveys.

4 Polling companies conducted pilot tests of the GPP in consultation with the Index team,
and launched the final survey for full fieldwork.

5 The Index team sent the questionnaires to local experts and engaged in continual
interaction with them.

6 The Index team collected and mapped the data onto the eight factors and 44 sub-factors
with global comparability that make up the scores and rankings of the WJP Rule of Law
Index. The Index scores and rankings exclude the ninth factor and its three sub-factors
because they cannot be measured in a comparable manner globally.

7 The Index team constructed the final scores using a five-step process:
a. Codified the questionnaire items as numeric values
b. Produced raw country scores by aggregating the responses from
several individuals (experts and/or general public)
c. Normalized the raw scores
d. Aggregated the normalized scores into sub-factors and factors
using simple averages
e. Produced the normalized scores, which are rounded to two
decimal points, and the final rankings

8 The data was subject to a series of tests to identify possible biases and errors. For example,
the Index team cross-checked all sub-factors against more than 70 third-party sources,
including quantitative data and qualitative assessments drawn from local and international
organizations.

9 A sensitivity analysis was conducted by the Econometrics and Applied Statistics Unit of
the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, in collaboration with the Index team,
to assess the statistical reliability of the results.

10 To illustrate whether the rule of law in a country significantly changed over the
course of the past year, a measure of change over time was produced based on the
annual difference in the country-level factor scores, the standard errors of these
scores (estimated from a set of 100 bootstrap samples), and the results of the
corresponding t-tests.

11 The data was organized into country reports, tables, and figures to facilitate their
presentation and interpretation. For tables organized by income group, the WJP follows
the World Bank income classifications.

162
Methodology
The WJP Rule of Law Index is the first attempt to systematically and comprehensively quantify the rule of law around the world and
remains unique in its operationalization of rule of law dimensions into concrete questions.
The WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 report presents information on
eight composite factors that are further disaggregated into 44
specific sub-factors (see page 11). Factor 9, Informal Justice, is
included in the conceptual framework, but has been excluded
from the aggregated scores and rankings in order to provide
meaningful cross-country comparisons.
The country scores and rankings presented in this report are
built from more than 500 variables drawn from the assessments
of more than 130,000 households and 4,000 legal practitioners
and experts in 128 countries and jurisdictions, making it the most
accurate portrayal of the factors that contribute to shaping the
rule of law in a country.
Data Sources
To present an image that accurately portrays the rule of law
as experienced by ordinary people, each score of the Index is
calculated using a large number of questions drawn from two
original data sources collected by the World Justice Project in
each country or jurisdiction: a General Population Poll (GPP) and
a series of Qualified Respondents’ Questionnaires (QRQs). These
two data sources collect up-to-date firsthand information that is
not available at the global level, and constitute the world’s most
comprehensive dataset of its kind. They capture the experiences
and perceptions of ordinary citizens and in-country professionals
concerning the performance of the state and its agents and
the actual operation of the legal framework in their country or
jurisdiction.
The GPP surveys provide firsthand information on the
experiences and the perceptions of ordinary people regarding
a range of pertinent rule of law information, including their
dealings with the government, the ease of interacting with state
bureaucracy, the extent of bribery and corruption, the availability
of dispute resolution systems, and the prevalence of common
crimes to which they are exposed.
The GPP questionnaire includes 127 perception-based
questions and 213 experience-based questions, along with
socio-demographic information on all respondents. The
questionnaire is translated into local languages, adapted to
common expressions, and administered by leading local polling
companies using a probability sample of 1,000 respondents.3 In
previous editions of the Index, the poll has been conducted in
the three largest cities of each country or jurisdiction. However,
the World Justice Project’s goal was to update its methodology
3
Due to small populations or obstacles to data collection in certain countries, the sampling plan was adjusted in some cases. One adjustment was to decrease the sample size.
For more information on specific countries and sample sizes, see pages 166-168.
to include nationally representative polls. Toward this end,
nationally representative polls have been conducted in 63
countries and jurisdictions covered in the WJP Rule of Law Index
2020. Nationally representative polls will be conducted in the
remaining countries and jurisdictions in future editions of the
Index. Depending on the particular situation of each country or
jurisdiction, one of three different polling methodologies is used:
face-to-face, telephone, or online. The GPP has been carried out
in each country or jurisdiction every other year. The polling data
used in this year’s report was collected during the fall of 2019 (for
10 countries and jurisdictions), fall of 2018 (for 70 countries and
jurisdictions), fall of 2017 (for 45 countries and jurisdictions), the
fall of 2016 (for four countries and jurisdictions), the fall of 2014
(for three countries and jurisdictions), the fall of 2012 (for one
country), and the fall of 2011 (for two countries or jurisdictions).
Detailed information regarding the country or jurisdiction
coverage (cities covered or nationally representative), the polling
companies contracted to administer the questionnaire, and the
polling methodology employed in each of the 128 countries and
jurisdictions is presented on page 166.
The QRQs complement the household data with assessments
from in-country practitioners and academics with expertise in
civil and commercial law; constitutional law, civil liberties, and
criminal law; labor law; and public health. These questionnaires
gather timely input on a range of topics from practitioners who
frequently interact with state institutions. Such topics include
information on the efficacy of courts, the strength of regulatory
enforcement, and the reliability of accountability mechanisms.
The questionnaires contain closed-ended perception questions
and several hypothetical scenarios with highly detailed factual
assumptions aimed at ensuring comparability across countries.
The QRQ surveys are conducted annually, and the questionnaires
are completed by respondents selected from directories of law
firms, universities and colleges, research organizations, and non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as through referrals
from the WJP global network of practitioners, and all are vetted
by WJP staff based on their expertise. The expert surveys are
administered in five languages: English, French, Portuguese,
Russian, and Spanish. The QRQ data for this report include
more than 4,000 surveys, which represents an average of 32
respondents per country. This data was collected from May 2019
through October 2019.
WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 163
 Data Cleaning and Score Computation
Once collected, the data is carefully processed to arrive at
country-level scores. As a first step, the respondent level data
are edited to exclude partially completed surveys, suspicious
data, and outliers (which are detected using the Z-score method).
Individual answers are then mapped onto the 44 sub-factors of
the Index (or onto the intermediate categories that make up each
sub-factor), codified so that all values fall between 0 (weakest
adherence to the rule of law) and 1 (strongest adherence to the
rule of law), and aggregated at the country level using the simple
(or unweighted) average of all respondents.
This year, to allow for an easier comparison across years, the
resulting 2020 scores have been normalized using the Min-Max
method with a base year of 2015. These normalized scores were
then successively aggregated from the variable level all the way
up to the factor level to produce the final country scores, rounded
to two decimal points, and rankings. In most cases, the GPP and
QRQ questions are equally weighted in the calculation of the
scores of the intermediate categories (sub-factors and sub-sub-
factors).
A full picture of how questions are mapped onto indicators and
how they are weighted is available on the WJP Rule of Law Index
website at worldjusticeproject.org.
Data Validation
As a final step, data is validated and cross-checked against
qualitative and quantitative third-party sources to provide an
additional layer of analysis and to identify possible mistakes or
inconsistencies within the data. Most of the third-party data
sources used to cross-check the Index scores are described in
Botero and Ponce (2011). 4
Methodological Changes to this Year’s Report
Every year, the WJP reviews the methods of data collection
to ensure that the information produced is valid, useful, and
continues to capture the status of the rule of law in the world.
To maintain consistency with previous editions and to facilitate
tracking changes over time, this year’s questionnaires and data
maps are closely aligned with those administered in the past.
In order to improve the accuracy of the QRQ results and
reduce respondent burden, proactive dependent interviewing
techniques were used to remind respondents who participated in
last year’s survey of their responses in the previous year.
This year, the WJP modified the calculation of the two third party
source variables that make up sub-factor 5.2.1, “Armed conflict.”
The two variables are “number of battle related deaths” and
“number of casualties resulting from one-sided violence,” which
both come from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program at Uppsala
University in Sweden. This change was made to more accurately
approximate the number of battle related deaths and casualties
4
Botero, J. and Ponce, A. (2011) “Measuring the Rule of Law”: WJP Working Paper No.1, available at worldjusticeproject.org/publications.
164
resulting from one-sided violence in each country in a given year
due to a specific conflict. In order to determine the changes in
factor scores in the country profiles, the new calculation method
was applied to both the 2019 and the 2020 scores.
This year, no new questions or indicators were added to the
Index. Overall, 100 percent of questions remained the same
between the 2019 and 2020 editions of the Index. A description
of the variables is available at: worldjusticeproject.org.
Tracking Changes Over Time
This year’s report includes two measures to illustrate whether
the rule of law in a country, as measured through the factors
of the WJP Rule of Law Index, changed since the previous year.
One measure is the change in factor score, which is included in
the country profiles for each factor in each country. The second
measure is a measure of statistically significant changes, both
positive and negative. This measure is presented in the form of
a green or red asterisk and text, and represents a summary of
rigorous statistical testing based on the use of bootstrapping
procedures (see below). For each factor, this measure has no
asterisk and is written in black text if there was no statistically
significant change in the score since last year. If there was a
change leading to a statistically significant improvement in
the score, the change in factor score is written in green text
and has a green asterisk. If there was a change leading to a
statistically significant decline in the score, the change in factor
score is written in red text and has a red asterisk. This measure
complements the numerical scores and rankings presented in this
report, which benchmark each country’s current performance
on the factors and sub-factors of the Index against that of other
countries. The measure of change over time is constructed in
three steps:
1. First, last year’s scores are subtracted from this year’s
to obtain, for each country and each factor, the annual
difference in scores.
2. To test whether the annual changes are statistically
significant, a bootstrapping procedure is used to
estimate standard errors. To calculate these errors,
100 samples of respondent-level observations (of equal
size to the original sample) are randomly selected with
replacement for each country from the pooled set of
respondents for last year and this year. These samples
are used to produce a set of 100 country-level scores
for each factor and each country, which are utilized to
calculate the final standard errors. These errors—which
measure the uncertainty associated with picking a
particular sample of respondents—are then employed
to conduct pair-wise t-tests for each country and each
factor.
 3. Finally, to illustrate the annual change, a measure of
change over time is produced based on the value of the
annual difference and its statistical significance (at the
10 percent level).
Strengths and Limitations
The Index methodology has both strengths and limitations. Among
its strengths is the inclusion of both expert and household surveys
to ensure that the findings reflect the conditions experienced
by the population. Another strength is that it approaches the
measurement of rule of law from various angles by triangulating
information across data sources and types of questions. This
approach not only enables accounting for different perspectives on
the rule of law, but it also helps to reduce possible bias that might
be introduced by any other particular data collection method.
Finally, it relies on statistical testing to determine the significance
of the changes in the factor scores over the last year.
With the aforementioned methodological strengths come a
number of limitations. First, the data sheds light on rule of law
dimensions that appear comparatively strong or weak, but are not
specific enough to establish causation. Thus, it will be necessary to
use the Index in combination with other analytical tools to provide
a full picture of causes and possible solutions. Second, in previous
editions of the Index, the methodology has only been applied in
three major urban areas in each of the indexed countries for the
General Population Poll. However, the World Justice Project’s goal
was to update its methodology to include nationally representative
polls. Toward this end, nationally representative polls have been
conducted in 63 countries and jurisdictions covered in the WJP
Rule of Law Index 2020. Nationally representative polls will be
conducted in the remaining countries and jurisdictions in future
editions of the Index. Third, given the rapid changes to the rule
of law occurring in some countries, scores for some countries
may be sensitive to the specific points in time when the data was
collected. To address this, the WJP is piloting test methods of
moving averages to account for short-term fluctuations. Fourth,
the QRQ data may be subject to problems in measurement error
due to the limited number of experts in some countries, resulting in
less precise estimates. To address this, the WJP works constantly
to expand its network of in-country academic and practitioner
experts who contribute their time and expertise to this endeavor.
Finally, due to the limited number of experts in some countries
(which implies higher standard errors) and the fact that the GPP
is carried out in each country every other year (which implies that
for some countries, some variables do not change from one year to
another), it is possible that the test described above fails to detect
small changes in a country’s situation over time.
Other methodological considerations
A detailed presentation of the methodology, including a table and
description of the more than 500 variables used to construct the
Index scores, is available at: worldjusticeproject.org and in Botero,
J. and Ponce, A. (2011) “Measuring the Rule of Law”: WJP Working
Paper No.1, available at: worldjusticeproject.org/publications.
Using the WJP Rule of Law Index
The WJP Rule of Law Index has been designed to offer a reliable
and independent data source for policy makers, businesses, non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), and other constituencies to
assess a country’s adherence to the rule of law as perceived and
experienced by the average person, identify a country’s strengths
and weaknesses in comparison to similarly situated countries,
and track changes over time. The Index has been designed to
include several features that set it apart from other indices and
make it valuable for a large number of countries, thus providing
a powerful resource that can inform policy debates both within
and across countries. However, the Index’s findings must be
interpreted in light of certain inherent limitations.
1. The WJP Rule of Law Index does not identify priorities
for reform and is not intended to establish causation or
to ascertain the complex relationship among different
rule of law dimensions in various countries.
2. The Index’s rankings and scores are the product of a
rigorous data collection and aggregation methodology.
Nonetheless, as with all measures, they are subject to
measurement error.
3. Given the uncertainty associated with picking a
particular sample of respondents, standard errors have
been calculated using bootstrapping methods to test
whether the annual changes in the factor scores are
statistically significant.
4. Indices and indicators are subject to potential abuse
and misinterpretation. Once released to the public, they
can take on a life of their own and be used for purposes
unanticipated by their creators. If data is taken out of
context, it can lead to unintended or erroneous policy
decisions.
5. Rule of law concepts measured by the Index may
have different meanings across countries. Users are
encouraged to consult the specific definitions of the
variables employed in the construction of the Index,
which are discussed in greater detail in the methodology
section of the WJP Rule of Law Index website.
6. The Index is generally intended to be used in
combination with other instruments, both quantitative
and qualitative. Just as in the areas of health or
economics, no single index conveys a full picture of a
country’s situation. Policy-making in the area of rule
of law requires careful consideration of all relevant
dimensions­­­­­­­­—which may vary from country to country
—and a combination of sources, instruments, and
methods.
7. Pursuant to the sensitivity analysis of the Index data
conducted in collaboration with the Econometrics and
Applied Statistics Unit of the European Commission’s
Joint Research Centre, confidence intervals have been
calculated for all figures included in the WJP Rule of Law
Index. These confidence intervals and other relevant
considerations regarding measurement error are
reported in Saisana and Saltelli (2015) and Botero and
Ponce (2011).
The following pages (166-168) list the coverage and polling
methodology for the GPP in the 128 indexed countries and
jurisdictions.
WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 165
 Country/Jurisdiction Coverage Polling Company Methodology Sample Year
D3: Designs, Data, Decisions &
Afghanistan Nationally representative Face-to-face 3019 2019
ACSOR Surveys

Albania Nationally representative IDRA Research & Consulting Face-to-face 1000 2018

WJP in collaboration with local

Algeria Nationally representative Face-to-face 1000 2018
partner

Angola Nationally representative Marketing Support Consultancy Face-to-face 1010 2018

Antigua and Barbuda Nationally representative DMR Insights Ltd. Face-to-face 513 2018

Argentina Nationally representative StatMark Group Face-to-face 1010 2018

Big Picture Marketing Strategy &

Australia Nationally representative Online 1067 2018
Research

Austria Vienna, Graz, Linz YouGov Nordic Online 1008 2017

The Bahamas Nationally representative DMR Insights Ltd. Face-to-face 500 2018

Bangladesh Dhaka, Chittagong, Khulna Org-Quest Research Ltd. Face-to-face 1000 2016

Barbados Nationally representative DMR Insights Ltd. Face-to-face 513 2018

Market Research & Polls - EURASIA

(MRP-EURASIA)/
Belarus Minsk, Gomel, Mogilev Face-to-face 1000/401 2014/2017
WJP in collaboration with local
partner

Belgium Nationally representative YouGov Online 1007 2018

Belize Nationally representative CID-Gallup Face-to-face 1000 2019

Benin Nationally representative Liaison Marketing Face-to-face 1010 2018

Bolivia Nationally representative Captura Consulting Face-to-face 1000 2018

Bosnia and Sarajevo, Banja Luka, Tuzla Kantar TNS MIB Face-to-face 1000 2017
Herzegovina
Botswana Nationally representative BJKA Consulting Face-to-face 1000 2018

Datum Internacional/About Brazil

Brazil São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Salvador Face-to-face 1049 2017
Market Research

Bulgaria Sofia, Plovdiv, Varna Alpha Research Ltd. Face-to-face 1001 2018

Burkina Faso Ouagadougou, Bobo Dioulasso, Koudougou Kantar TNS Face-to-face 1029 2017

Cambodia Phnom Penh, Battambang, Kampong Cham Indochina Research Face-to-face 1000 2014

Cameroon Nationally representative Liaison Marketing Face-to-face 1006 2018

Canada Toronto, Montreal, Calgary YouGov Nordic Online 1000 2017

Santiago, Valparaíso/Viña del Mar,

Chile Datum Internacional S.A./Cadem S.A. Face-to-face 1003 2017
Antofagasta

WJP in collaboration with local

China Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou Face-to-face 508 2018
partner

Colombia Nationally representative Tempo Group Face-to-face 1000 2018

Costa Rica Nationally representative StatMark Group Face-to-face 1030 2019

Cote d'Ivoire Abidjan, Bouaké, Daloa Liaison Marketing Face-to-face 1011 2017

Croatia Nationally representative Ipsos Face-to-face 1010 2018

Czech Republic Prague, Brno, Ostrava YouGov Nordic Online 1013 2017

Congo, Dem. Rep. Kinshasa, Lubumbashi, Mbuji-Mayi Kantar Public at TNS RMS Senegal Face-to-face 1083 2018

Denmark Copenhagen, Aarhus, Aalborg YouGov Nordic Online 1016 2017

Dominica Nationally representative StatMark Group Face-to-face 500 2018

Dominican Republic Nationally representative CID-Gallup Latin America Face-to-face 1014 2018

Ecuador Guayaquil, Quito, Cuenca Dichter and Neira Face-to-face 703 2017

WJP in collaboration with local

Egypt Cairo, Alexandria, Giza Face-to-face 1000 2017
partner

El Salvador Nationally representative CID-Gallup Latin America Face-to-face 1000 2018

Estonia Tallinn, Tartu, Narva Norstat Eesti Online 1010 2017

Ethiopia Addis Ababa, Gondar, Nazret Infinite Insight Ltd. Face-to-face 1037 2017

Finland Helsinki, Espoo, Tampere YouGov Nordic Online 1014 2017

France Nationally representative YouGov Online 1040 2018

The Gambia Nationally representative Infinite Insight Ltd. Face-to-face 1030 2019

ACT Market Research and Consulting

Georgia Tbilisi, Batumi, Kutaisi Face-to-face 1000 2017
Company

Germany Nationally representative YouGov Online 1048 2018

166
Country/Jurisdiction Coverage Polling Company Methodology Sample Year

Ghana Nationally representative Infinite Insight Ltd. Face-to-face 1103 2018

Greece Athens, Thessaloniki, Patras YouGov Nordic Online 1015 2017

Grenada Nationally representative DMR Insights Ltd. Face-to-face 500 2018

Mercaplan Central America &

Guatemala Nationally representative Face-to-face 1008 2018
Caribbean

Guinea Conakry, Nzerekore, Kankan Kantar Public at TNS RMS Senegal Face-to-face 1065 2018

Guyana Georgetown, Linden, New Amsterdam StatMark Group Face-to-face 527 2018

Honduras Nationally representative CID-Gallup Face-to-face 1000 2019

WJP in collaboration with local

Hong Kong SAR, China Hong Kong Face-to-face 1004 2017
partner

Hungary Budapest, Debrecen, Szeged Ipsos Hungary Face-to-face 1000 2017

India Nationally representative Market Xcel Data Matrix Pvt. Ltd. Face-to-face 1059 2018

Indonesia Jakarta, Surabaya, Bandung MRI (Marketing Research Indonesia) Face-to-face 1004 2017

BJKA consulting with local partner

Iran Tehran, Mashhad, Isfahan Face-to-face 1010 2018
MHA Research

Italy Rome, Milan, Naples YouGov Nordic Online 1004 2017

Jamaica Nationally representative StatMark Group Face-to-face 1002 2019

Acorn Marketing & Research

Japan Nationally representative Online 1000 2018
Consultant (M) Sdn Bhd

WJP in collaboration with local

Jordan Nationally representative Face-to-face 1000 2018
partner

Almaty, Nur-Sultan (formerly Astana), WJP in collaboration with local

Kazakhstan Face-to-face 1000 2017
Shymkent partner

Kenya Nationally representative Infinite Insight Ltd. Face-to-face 1099 2018

Kosovo Nationally representative IDRA Research & Consulting Face-to-face 1000 2019

Kyrgyz Republic Nationally representative Ipsos Face-to-face 1000 2018

Lebanon Beirut, Tripoli, Sidon REACH SAL Face-to-face 1000 2017

Liberia Monrovia, Gbarnga and Buchanan Infinite Insight Ltd. Face-to-face 1113 2018

Madagascar Antananarivo, Toamasina, Antsirabe DCDM Research Face-to-face 1000 2017

Malawi Lilongwe, Blantyre, Mzuzu Infinite Insight Ltd. Face-to-face 1039 2017

Acorn Marketing & Research

Malaysia Klang Valley, Johor Bahru, Ipoh Face-to-face 1000 2017
Consultant (M) Sdn Bhd

Mali Nationally representative Marketing Support Consultancy Face-to-face 1012 2018

Mauritania Nationally representative Liaison Marketing Face-to-face 1000 2018

Mauritius Nationally representative DCDM Research Face-to-face 1000 2018

Mexico Mexico City, Guadalajara, Monterrey Data Opinión Pública y Mercados Face-to-face 1000 2017

Georgian Opinion Research Business

Moldova Chisinau, Balti, Cahul International (GORBI) in collaboration Face-to-face 1043 2017
with local partner

Mongolian Marketing Consulting

Mongolia Ulaanbaatar, Erdenet, Darkhan Face-to-face 1000 2017
Group LLC

WJP in collaboration with local

Morocco Casablanca, Fes, Tangier Face-to-face 1000 2017
partner

Mozambique Nationally representative Quest Research Services Face-to-face 1009 2018

Myanmar Survey Research Co., Ltd

Myanmar Yangon, Mandalay, Nay Pyi Taw Face-to-face 1000 2018
(MSR)

Namibia Nationally representative Quest Research Services Face-to-face 1001 2018

Nepal Kathmandu, Pokhara, Lalitpur Solutions Consultant Face-to-face 1000 2017

Netherlands Nationally representative YouGov Online 1113 2018

Big Picture Marketing Strategy &

New Zealand Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch Online 1000 2017
Research

Nicaragua Nationally representative CID-Gallup Face-to-face 1000 2019

Niger Niamey, Zinder, Maradi Liaison Marketing Face-to-face 1011 2018

Nigeria Nationally representative Infinite Insight Ltd. Face-to-face 1083 2018

North Macedonia Skopje, Kumanovo, Bitola Ipsos dooel Skopje Face-to-face 1017 2017

Norway Oslo, Bergen, Trondheim YouGov Nordic Online 1007 2017

Pakistan Nationally representative Gallup Pakistan Face-to-face 1000 2019

Panama Nationally representative CID-Gallup Face-to-face 1000 2019

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 167

 Country/Jurisdiction Coverage Polling Company Methodology Sample Year

Peru Nationally representative Datum Internacional S.A. Face-to-face 1000 2018

Philippines Manila, Cebu, Davao APMI Partners Face-to-face 1008 2016

Poland Warsaw, Krakow, Lodz IQS Sp. z o.o. Face-to-face 1000 2018

Portugal Lisbon, Porto, Amadora YouGov Nordic Online 1016 2017

Acorn Marketing & Research

Republic of Korea Nationally representative Online 1000 2018
Consultant (M) Sdn Bhd

Alpha Research Ltd. in collaboration

Romania Nationally representative Face-to-face 1000 2018
with local partner

Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Novosibirsk/ WJP in collaboration with local

Russian Federation Face-to-face 1000/1000 2016/2018
Nationally representative partner

Rwanda Kigali Infinite Insight Ltd. Face-to-face 316 2018

Senegal Pikine, Dakar, Thiès Kantar TNS Face-to-face 1012 2017

Serbia Belgrade, Novi Sad, Niš Ipsos Strategic Marketing d.o.o. Face-to-face 1002 2017

Sierra Leone Nationally representative Infinite Insight Ltd. Face-to-face 1165 2018

Singapore Singapore Survey Sampling International Online 1000 2017

Slovenia Ljubljana, Maribor, Celje Ipsos d.o.o. Face-to-face 1006 2017

South Africa Nationally representative Quest Research Services Face-to-face 1014 2018

Spain Nationally representative YouGov Online 1051 2018

Sri Lanka Colombo, Kaduwela, Maharagama Kantar LMRB Face-to-face 1010 2017

St. Kitts and Nevis Nationally representative DMR Insights Ltd. Face-to-face 500 2018

St. Lucia Nationally representative DMR Insights Ltd. Face-to-face 500 2018
St. Vincent and the
Nationally representative DMR Insights Ltd. Face-to-face 500 2018
Grenadines
Suriname Nationally representative CID-Gallup Latin America Face-to-face 510 2018

Sweden Nationally representative YouGov Online 1049 2018

Tanzania Dar es Salaam, Mwanza, Arusha Infinite Insight Ltd. Face-to-face 1037 2018

Thailand Bangkok, Nakhon Ratchasima, Udon Thani Infosearch Limited Face-to-face 1000 2018

Togo Nationally representative Marketing Support Consultancy Face-to-face 1005 2018

Trinidad and Tobago Nationally representative CID-Gallup Latin America Face-to-face 1006 2018

Tunisia Big Tunis, Sfax, Sousse BJKA Consulting Face-to-face 1001 2017

Turkey İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir Kantar Insights Face-to-face 1039 2018

Uganda Kampala, Nansana, Kira Kantar Public East Africa Face-to-face 1062 2018

Ukraine Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odessa GfK Ukraine Face-to-face 1079 2017

WJP in collaboration with local

United Arab Emirates Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Sharjah Face-to-face 1011/200 2011/2017
partner

United Kingdom Nationally representative YouGov Online 1056 2018

United States Nationally representative YouGov Online 1086 2018

Uruguay Nationally representative BM Business Partners Face-to-face 1000 2018

Market Research & Polls - EURASIA

Uzbekistan Tashkent, Namangan, Samarkand Face-to-face 1000/300 2014/2018
(MRP-EURASIA)/Ipsos

WJP in collaboration with local

Venezuela, RB Caracas, Maracaibo, Valencia Face-to-face 1000/1015 2016/2018
partner/Statmark Group

Vietnam Ho Chi Minh City, Hanoi, Hai Phong Indochina Research (Vietnam) Ltd. Face-to-face 1000/1000 2011/2017

SIS International Research/Intraspace

Zambia Lusaka, Kitwe, Chipata Face-to-face 1004/1014 2012/2017
Market Consultancy Ltd.

Zimbabwe Nationally representative Quest Research Services Face-to-face 1001 2018

168
Contributing Experts
The WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 was made possible by the generous contributions of academics and practitioners who contributed
their time and expertise. The names of those experts wishing to be acknowledged individually are listed below. This report was also
made possible by the work of the polling companies who conducted fieldwork, and the thousands of individuals who have responded
to the General Population Poll around the world.

Afghanistan Sayed Fazlullah Wahidi Gjergji Gjika Karim Kari Eurico Ndando
Afghan NGOs Coordination Gjika & Associates
Abdul Hadi Zamani Bureau Khaled Goussanem Gilberto Pelinganga
Nangarhar University Idlir Tivari Goussanem & Aloui Law
Sayed Ramiz Husaini Tivari & Harecari Law Firm Islândia Ribeiro
Asmand FPJRA Firm
Afghan Health and Mehdi Berbagui Orlando Buta
Development Services Tareq Eqtedary Irv Vaso Cabinet d'Avocats Mehdi AVM - Advogados e
Generation Positive Kalo & Associates Berbagui Associados
Baryalai Hakimi Organization
Kabul University Jonida Melani (Braja) Mohamed Amin Vicente Pongolola
Thomas Kraemer Wolf Theiss Kheireddine CVP-Sociedade de
Hashmat Khalil Nadirpor Kakar Advocates LLC Ligue Algérienne des Advogados, RL.
Legal Education Support Loren Liço Droits de L'Homme
Program Zabihullah Ghazawi Lico & Associates Anonymous
Community Action Said Hellal Contributors
Jordy de Meij and for Healing Poverty Nensi Seferi
Khalid Mohammadi Organization Gjika & Associates Salima Aloui Antigua and Barbuda
Kakar Advocates LLC Goussanem & Aloui Law
Anonymous Oltjan Hoxholli Firm Damien O. Benjamin
Khalid C. Sekander Contributors LPA Law Firm Anaheim Investment
Yaya Farouk Group Services Limited
Khalid Massoudi Albania Shirli Gorenca
Masnad Law Firm Kalo & Associates Anonymous Gaye Hechme
Albana Fona Contributors Island Living Investment
Mazhar Bangash LPA Law Firm Anonymous Services Ltd.
RIAA Barker Gillette Contributors Angola
Andia Pustina Hugh Marshall
Mohammad Ayub Studio Pustina Algeria Adelino Naquarta Marshall & Co.
Yusufzai ADN - Advogados Attorneys-at-Law
Afghan Independent Anteo Papa Abderrahmane Talbi
Human Rights Fatmir Braka Partners and Adolfo Anibal Pinho Jarid A. Hewlett
Commission Associates Adel Messaoudi Faúlho Rasoilo Watt, Dorsett & Co.
Ligue Algérienne des
Mohammad Nazir Brunilda Subashi Droits de L'Homme Adriano Gaspar Kivinee Knight-Edwards
Rasuly Universiteti Ismail Qemali Ministério da Acção Social, May Knight Law Inc.
Organization for People's Adel Rami Família e Promoção da
Health in Action Dorant Ekmekçiu Centre Hospitalo- Mulher Tracy Benn-Roberts
Hoxha, Memi & Hoxha Universitaire Nedir TBR Conflict Management
Mohammad Shafiq Mohamed de Tizi Ouzou António Cardoso Dias and Legal Services
Hamdam Drini Hakorja dos Santos
Anti-Corruption Watch Ahmed Ridha Boudiaf Associação dos Anonymous
Organization Eglantina Biba Boudiaf et Boudiaf, Scp Assistentes Socias-Angola Contributors
Frost & Fire Consulting d'Avocats Organizacional
Mushtair Daqiq Argentina
Enxhi Kallogjeri Aicha Ladjouze Rezig Armindo Moisés Kasesa
Rahmanullah Shahab Frost & Fire Consulting Ligue Algérienne Anti Chimuco Adrian Fernando Otero
Afghan Anglo Legal Rhumatismale AMKC Prestação de Fundación Esperanza
Consultancy Services Eris Hoxha Serviços SU Limitada Patagonia de Sierra
Hoxha, Memi & Hoxha Aissa Touahria Grande
Saeeq Shajjan Grant Thornton Barros Gaspar Simão
Shajjan & Associates Erlir Puto BCSA Advogados Alberto Gonzalez Torres
Puto, Topi & Partners Law Berbar Ababakrine Baker McKenzie
Sanzar Kakar Firm Seddik Eduardo Afonso
Afghanistan Holding
Group Gentiana Agim Tirana Chalal Karima Elsa Tchicanha
Gentiana Agim Tirana BCSA Advogados
Kahina Bouagache
Women Lawyers Group Ernestina da Graça
Middle East Francisco
WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 169
 Alberto Justo Giles
Asociación de Abogados
de Merlo
Alejandro Falcó
Fundación Enlaces para el
Desarrollo Sustentable
Claudia Viviana Madies
Universidad Isalud
Claudio Jesús Santagati
Defensoria General de
Lomas de Zamora
Daniela Carrara
Universidad de Buenos
Aires
Dante Graña
Fundación Avedis
Donabedian Argentina
Débora Eliana Fuhr
De Dios & Goyena
Diego Silva Ortiz
Silva Ortiz, Alfonso, Pavic
& Louge
Eduardo Alberto
Muniagurria
JP O´Farrell Abogados
Ernesto Marcelo Segal
Universidad de Buenos
Aires
Federico Borzi Cirilli
Ceballos & Ceballos
Francisco Clucellas
Organización de Servicios
Directos Empresarios
Guillermo Schor-
Landman
Fundación Iberoameri-
cana de Telemedicina
Humberto Federico
Rios
Estudio Rios Lawyers
Joaquin Emilio Zappa
JP O´Farrell Abogados
Juan Martín Salvadores
de Arzuaga
De Dios & Goyena
Juan Vicente Sola
Estudio Sola
Lucila Escriña
Marval, O'Farrell & Mairal
María Eugenia Cantenys
Marval, O'Farrell & Mairal
170
Maria Eugenia Montero Greg Patmore Gerhard Jarosch Tavares K. LaRoda
Hewlett Packard University of Sydney International Association Sunshine Holdings Ltd.
Enterprise of Prosecutors
James Gillespie Anonymous
María Paola Trigiani University of Sydney Isabelle Pellech Contributors
Alfaro Abogados
Kate Burns Ivo Greiter Bangladesh
Martin Langsam University of Technology Greiter Pegger Kofler &
Universidad Isalud Partners A. H. M. Belal
Kate Eastman Chowdhury
Mercedes Balado New South Wales Bar Julian Feichtinger FM Consulting
Bevilacqua Association Cerha Hempel Spiegelfeld International
MBB Abogados Rechtsanwälte
Mary Anne Noone A. S. M. Alamgir
Mercedes Lorenzo La Trobe University Karl Stoeger Institute of Epidemiology,
Hewlett Packard University of Graz Disease Control and
Enterprise Mary E. Crock Research; Ministry of
University of Sydney Martin Reinisch Health and Family Welfare
Nicolas Soler Brauneis Klauser Prändl
Merrilyn Walton Rechtsanwälte GmbH Abu Sayeed M. M.
Omar Eidelstein University of Sydney Rahman
LKEC Abogados Martin Risak United Hospital Ltd.
Neil James University of Vienna
Pablo Alejandro Australia Defence Ali Asif Khan
Pirovano Association Rupert Manhart Hossain & Khan
Pirovano & Bello Manhart Einsle Partner Associates
Abogados Nicholas Cowdery Rechtsanwälte
University of New South Anisul Hassan
Sandra Guillan Wales; University of Thomas Frad Syed Ishtiaq Ahmed &
De Dios & Goyena Sydney KWR Karasek Wietrzyk Associates
Rechtsanwälte
Santiago Spadafora Nicola McGarrity Asif Nazrul
Universidad Isalud University of New South Thomas Hofmann University of Dhaka
Wales Pallas Hofmann
Sebastián Lyszyk Rechtsanwaelte Bilqis Amin Hoque
Silva Ortiz Alfonso Peter Cashman Partnerschaft
Pavic & Louge University of Sydney Darras Abdullah
Walter Doralt Tanjib Alam & Associates
Anonymous Peter Sainsbury University of Graz
Contributors Ferdausur Rahman
Sean Cooney Walter Rabl A.S. & Associates
Australia The University of Medical University of
Melbourne Innsbruck Gazi Md Rokib Bin
Anne Cregan Hossain
Gilbert + Tobin Simon Rice Anonymous The Legal Circle
University of Sydney Contributors
Breen Creighton Ibtida Farhat Tropa
RMIT University Sonia Allan The Bahamas A.S. & Associates
Deakin University
Brendan Ashdown Candice C. Ferguson Junayed Ahmed
John Toohey Chambers Terry Carney Baycourt Chambers Chowdhury
University of Sydney Vertex Chambers
David Gill Darcel Williamson
Hewlett Packard Anonymous The Firm of Higgs and Khandaker Mashfique
Enterprise Contributors Johnson Ahmed
Rahman's Chambers
Esther Stern Austria Donna Harding-Lee
Flinders University of Harding-Lee & Company Masud Khan
South Australia Christoph Bezemek Md Khademul Islam
University of Graz G. Deon Thompson Choyon
Fiona McDonald Sturrup Thompson & Sattar & Co.
Queensland University of Clarissa Nitsch Associates
Technology Binder Grösswang Md Salequzzaman
Leah A. Rolle The Legal Era; Lincoln's
G. D. Edouard Tursan Claudia Habl University of the Bahamas Inn
d'Espaignet Austrian Public Health
University of Newcastle; Institute GOeG Rhyan A. A. Elliott Mir Shamsur Rahman
University of New England Higgs & Johnson The University of Asia
Clemens Egermann Pacific
Grant Niemann Barnert Egermann Sharanda C.
Illigasch Attorneys at Law Humes-Forbes Mohammad Rafiqul
Islam Chowdhury Alena Salei
M. R. I. Chowdhury & Belarus State University;
Associates Borovtsov & Salei
S. M. Abid Ur Rahman Alexander
Daudur Rahman Mina & RMOO Meeting
Associates
Alexander Nazarov
Sara Hossain
Bangladesh Legal Aid and Alexander Solopov
Services Trust Arzinger & Partners
Sayeed Abdullah Al Alexandr Moiseenko
Mamun Khan Borovtsov & Salei
A.S. & Associates
Alexey Korol
Shakina Akter Stepanovski, Papakul and
Rahman's Chambers Partners Attorneys at Law
Tanim Hussain Shawon Aliaksei Khvostsik
Centrum Praw Czlowieka
Tanvir Quader Viasna
Vertex Chambers
Anastasia Morgun
Tasmiah Nuhiya Ahmed Borovtsov & Salei
Anonymous Anatoly Leshenok
Contributors People PLUS
Barbados Andrei Famenka
World Health
Andrew Pilgrim Organization
Pilgrim & Associates
Attorneys-at-Law Antonina Ivanova
Chester L. Sue Artemev Sergej
Chester L. Sue & Co. Belarusian State
University
Esther Obiora Arthur
Rehoboth Law Chambers Daria Sarbay
REVERA Law Firm
Ivan Hugh Walters
Onesimus Legal Services Dmitry Kovalchik
Stepanovski, Papakul and
Jaydene O. Thomas Partners Attorneys at Law
Capital Law Chambers
Dmitry Petrovich
Kathy-A. Hamblin Eduardovich
Charlton Chambers
Dmitry Semashko
Margot Greene Stepanovski, Papakul and
Ellangowan Strathclyde St. Partners Attorneys at Law
Michael, Attorneys-at-Law
Elena Sheleg
Nicole Roachford Stepanovski, Papakul and
Partners Attorneys at Law
Tanya A. Hinds
Kirill Tomashevski
Anonymous Belarusian State University;
Contributors International University
MITSO
Belarus
Ksenia Zhukovskaya
Aleksandr Dergachov Verkhovodko & Partners
Human Rights Center
"Spring" Oksana Puchkovskaya
Stepanovski, Papakul and
Alena Hodanovich Partners Attorneys at Law
Alternative
Saman Neharesh
Borovtsov & Salei
Sergey Demianenko Jean-Marc Gollier Wayne Piper
Verkhovodko & Partners Eubelius Law Firm Musa & Balderamos LLP
Tatiana Ignatovskaya Jerome Aubertin Anonymous
Stepanovski, Papakul and Stibbe Contributors
Partners Attorneys at Law
Nathalie Vandevelde Benin
Vadzim Samaryn Cabinet d'Avocats
Belarusian State Vanderveeren, Thys, Adjowa Jacqueline
University Wauters & de Nys Adabra
Association Femme Action
Valentina Komova Patrick Goffaux pour le Développement de
(Ogarkova) Université Libre de la Famille
Stepanovski, Papakul and Bruxelles
Partners Attorneys at Law Agathe Affougnon Ago
Patrick Henry Barreau du Bénin
Vasili Zavadski Barreau de Liège
TimeAct Annick B. Nonohou
Philippe Colle Reseau des Soignants
Vassili Salei Vrije Universiteit Brussel Amis des Patients
Borovtsov & Salei
Valerie Flohimont Charles Badou
Viacheslav Shestak University of Namur Cabinet d'Avocats Charles
JSC Belvtorchermet Badou & Partners
Walter P. Verstrepen
Vital Kalyada Elegis Law Firm Chris Balogoun
VVK Litigation Squad Chris Balogoun Law Office
Anonymous
Vladimir Knyazev Contributors Elias Mahoulé Syné
Public Association Guidi
Polygraphologist Belize
Epiphanie F. Yelome
Yaraslau Halenchyk Adler G. L. Waight Nassou
Stepanovski, Papakul and Barrow & Williams LLP Université de Parakou
Partners Attorneys at Law
Deshawn Arzu Torres Gisèle Adounlohoun
Yulia Shuba Mckoy Torres LLP Obognon
Borovtsov & Salei
Emil Arguelles Justine Françoise
Yury Razvodovsky Arguelles & Company Houzanme
National Academy of Réseau des ONG et
Sciences Estevan Perera Associations de Femmes
Estevan Perera & contre la Féminisation du
Anonymous Company LLP VIH-SIDA
Contributors
Hector D. Guerra Luc Martin Hounkanrin
Belgium Marine Parade Chambers Barreau du Bénin
LLP
Ann Witters Nadine Dossou
Claeys & Engels Lissette V. Staine Sakponou
Barrow & Williams LLP SCPA Robert M. DOSSOU
Anthony Poppe
Xirius Public Law Partners Natalia Bevans Ogoudjé César Guegni
Legal Consultancy Firm of Cabinet d'Avocats Charles
Christoph Van der Elst Bevans and Company Ltd. Badou & Partners
Tilburg University
Oneyda Flores Piper Sossa Edmond Gbedo
Deirdre Carroll Law Office of Oneyda Ministère de la Santé
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Flores Piper
& Rosati Valentin Akoha
Payal Bhojraj Ghanwani
Freek Louckx Estevan Perera & Yvon Detchenou
Universiteit Antwerpen - Company LLP
Vrije Universiteit Brussel Anonymous
Rodwell Williams Contributors
Jean Bornet Barrow & Williams LLP
Bornet & Associes Bolivia
Victor Malcolm David
Jean Jacqmain Lizarraga Andrea Nemer Sabag
Université Libre de
Bruxelles Antonio Peres Velasco
WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 171
 Arletta Añez Dzeneta Omerdic Sanela Džanić Tapiwa Boipelo Gachala Daniel A. Dourado
University of Tuzla Joint Law Office Amela Osei-Ofei Swabi & Co. Universidade de São Paulo
Carlos Gerke Siles Pejdah & Sanela Džanić
Estudio Jurídico Gerke, Emir Spaho Thuto Gaboipone Daniel Bushatsky
Soc. Civ. Law Office Spaho Ltd. Selma Mezetović Međić Senwedi Advocacia Bushatsky
University of Sarajevo Bookbinder Business Law
Erika Pando Feđa Dupovac Daniel de Pádua
Law Office Spaho Ltd. Slaven Dizdar Tshekiso Tshekiso Andrade
Ivan Cáceres Ibañez Maric & Co. Law Firm Tshekiso Ditiro & Jani Universidade Federal de
Caceres & Asoc. Hana Korać Legal Practice Viçosa
International University Tarik Prolaz
Ivan Lima Magne of Travnik; Ministry of Tumalano Sekoto Danilo Costa N. A. Leite
Centro de Estudios de Internal Affairs, Sarajevo Vjekoslav Domljan Botswana-Harvard AIDS
Justicia y Participación Canton Centre for Regional Institute Partnership David Braga Junior
Economic Studies Hospital dos Servidores
Javier Mir Peña Harun Gadzo Anonymous Públicos do Estado de São
Mir & Asociados Abogados Messer Tehnoplin Ltd. Zijad Dzafic Contributors Paulo
Laborales University of Tuzla
Hodžić I. Edin Brazil Diogo R. Coutinho
Jorge Omar Mostajo Zijad Hasić Universidade de São Paulo
Barrios Indir Osmic Parliament Bosnia & Alexandre Fragoso
Universidad Mayor de San Herzegovina Silvestre Eduardo Pitrez de
Andrés Iur Amina Nikolajev Briganti Advogados Aguiar Corrêa
University of Sarajevo Zinka Grbo Universidade Federal do
Juan José Lima Magne University of Sarajevo Ana Clara Passos Rio Grande
Centro de Estudios de Ivanka Marković Presciliano
Justicia y Participación Univerzitet u Banjoj Luci Anonymous Universidade Federal de Elival Da Silva Ramos
Contributors Minas Gerais Universidade de São Paulo
Julio César Landívar Kanita Imamović-Čizmić
Castro University of Sarajevo Botswana Ana Paula de Barcellos Emilio Peluso Neder
Guevara & Gutiérrez S.C. Universidade do Estado do Meyer
Lana Bubalo Abel Modimo Rio de Janeiro Universidade Federal de
Nicolás Soliz Peinado University of Stavanger Modimo & Associates Minas Gerais
Salazar & Asociados Ana Paula Oliveira Avila
Law Office Spaho Bugalo Maripe Universidade Federal do Eraldo Silva Júnior
Pedro Barrientos University of Botswana Rio Grande do Sul Defensoria Pública da
Universidad Nacional de Lejla Balic União
Córdoba University of Sarajevo Buhle Ncube André de Melo Ribeiro
Dias Carneiro Advogados; Estêvão Mallet
Raul A. Baldivia Mehmed Ganic Kwadwo Osei-Ofei Universidade de São Paulo Universidade de São Paulo
Baldivia Unzaga & International University of Osei-Ofei Swabi & Co.
Asociados Sarajevo Arthur de Almeida Fabio Martins Di Jorge
Matseliso Grace 'Mota Lancellote Matias Advocacia Di Jorge
Rosario Baptista Midhat Izmirlija Land Administration Lemos
Canedo University of Sarajevo Authority Universidade Federal de Fabio Queiroz Pereira
Lavras Universidade Federal de
Sandra Salinas Miralem Porobic Moagi Moloi Minas Gerais
C.R.& F. Rojas Abogados Advokatska Kancelarija Minchin & Kelly Carlos Ayres
Porobic Maeda, Ayres e Sarubbi Fabio Ulhoa Coelho
Sergio Reynolds Ruiz Nako Bo Tebele Advogados Pontifícia Universidade
Bufete Reynolds Legal Mirela Cokic-Dzinic Ramalepa Attorneys Católica de São Paulo
Advice University of Tuzla Carolina Bessa Ferreira
Neo Ann-Ruth Sekhobe de Oliveira Felipe Asensi
Anonymous Mirjana Šarkinović Rahim Khan & Company Universidade do Estado do
Contributors Attorney's Office Mirjana Attorneys Carolina Dzimidas Rio de Janeiro
Šarkinović Haber
Bosnia and Herzegovina Olebile Daphney Muzila Defensoria Pública do Fernanda Vargas
Mirza Dzevdetbegovic Bookbinder Business Law Estado do Rio de Janeiro Terrazas
Adnan Duraković Joint Law Firm Kenan Conselho Nacional de
University of Zenica Elezovic and Mirza Patrick I. Akhiwu Carolina Giesbrecht Secretarias Municipais de
Dzevdetbegovic Pakmed Group Forte Korbage de Saúde
Andrea Zubovic- Castro
Devedzic Nasir Muftic Piyush Sharma Korbage de Castro Fernando Aith
University of Sarajevo Piyush Sharma Attorneys Sociedade de Advocacia Universidade de São Paulo
Bahrija Umihanic
University of Tuzla Nihad Sijerčić Shakila Khan Conrado Hübner Fernando Menezes
Karanovic & Partners Khan Corporate Law Mendes Universidade de São Paulo
Boris Stojanovic University of São Paulo
Osman Sinanovic Tachilisa Badala Balule
Denis Pajić University of Tuzla University of Botswana Dandara Ramos
University Džemal Bijedić CIDACS - Fiocruz Bahia

172
Flávia Souza Máximo
Pereira
Universidade Federal de
Ouro Preto
Gabriel Alves da Costa
Shell Brasil Petróleo Ltda.
Gerson Luiz Carlos
Branco
Universidade Federal do
Rio Grande do Sul
Guilherme Bier Barcelos
Rossi, Maffini, Milman &
Grando Advogados
Guilherme de Jesus
France
Fundação Getulio Vargas
Heloisa Estellita
FGV Direito
Henry Colombi
Universidade Federal de
Minas Gerais
Jéssica Gomes da Mata
Universidade de São Paulo
João Augusto Gameiro
Trench Rossi e Watanabe
Advogados
José Ricardo dos Santos
Luz Junior
Braga Nascimento e Zilio
Advogados Associados
Konstantin Gerber
Pontifícia Universidade
Católica de São Paulo
Leandro Bonini Farias
Coutinho e Farias
Sociedade de Advogados
Lenir Santos
Instituto de Direito
Sanitario Aplicado
Ligia Bahia
Universidade Federal do
Rio de Janeiro
Luciano Feldens
Pontifícia Universidade
Católica do Rio Grande
do Sul
Marcia Vilapiano
Gomes Primos
Primos e Primos
Advocacia
Márcio Souza
Guimarães
Márcio Guimarães
Advogados
Maria Celina Bodin de
Moraes
Pontifícia Universidade
Católica do Rio de Janeiro;
Rio de Janeiro State
University
Maria Clara Oliveira
Santos
Universidade Federal de
São João del-Rei
Maria Clara Versiani de
Castro
Universidade Federal de
Minas Gerais
Maria Fernanda
Tourinho Peres
Universidade de São Paulo
Mariana Alves Lara
Universidade Federal de
Minas Gerais
Marta Rodriguez de
Assis Machado
FGV Direito
Matheus C. Alcantara
Viana
Viana e Azevedo
Advogados
Mauricio Faragone
Faragone Advogados
Michael Freitas
Mohallem
Fundação Getulio Vargas
Nina Ranieri
Universidade de São Paulo
Ordélio Azevedo Sette
Azevedo Sette Advogados
Paula Rocha Gouvêa
Brener
Universidade Federal de
Minas Gerais
Paulo Rogério Sehn
Trench Rossi e Watanabe
Advogados
Paulo Sergio João
Pontifícia Universidade
Católica de São Paulo
Rachelle Balbinot
IMED
Rafael Villac Vicente de
Carvalho
Peixoto & Cury Advogados
Raoni Macedo
Bielschowsky
Universidade Federal de
Uberlândia
Raquel Betty de Castro Victor Hugo Criscuolo Vyara Veselinova
Pimenta Boson Tomova
Tribunal Regional do Universidade Federal do Penkov, Markov &
Trabalho da 3ª Região Sul da Bahia Partners Law Firm
Raquel Lima Scalcon Anonymous Anonymous
Alexander von Humboldt Contributors Contributors
Foundation
Bulgaria Burkina Faso
Roberta de Freitas
Campos Delchev & Partners Law Abdoulaye Soma
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz Firm
Abdrmane Berthe
Rodrigo Ghiringhelli de Denitsa Rukanova Université de Dédougou et
Azevedo Anti-Corruption Fund Centre Muraz
Pontifícia Universidade Foundation
Católica do Rio Grande Aimée Djiguimdé
do Sul Desislava Anastasova Association Peace for All
Cameron McKenna
Rodrigo Giordano de Nabarro Olswang LLP Alexandre L. Daboné
Castro Barreau du Burkina Faso;
Peixoto & Cury Advogados Gergana Ilieva SCPA HOREB
Sofia Bar Association
Rômulo Soares Apollinaire Joachimson
Valentini Ivelina Vassileva Kyélem de Tambèla
FPL Educacional Schoenherr Attorneys at Barreau du Burkina Faso
Law
Ronaldo Lourenço Arnaud Koulika
Munhoz Iveta Manolova Nikiema
Lourenço Munhoz Cameron McKenna Centre d'Études et de
Advogados Associados Nabarro Olswang LLP Recherche sur les TIC et la
Cyberactivité
Sara Carvalho Matanzaz Jean F. Crombois
Ferreira de Melo American University in Baimanai Angelain Poda
Advogados Bulgaria Université Ouaga II
Sergio Nelson Jenia Dimitrova Bannitouo Some
Mannheimer Cameron McKenna
Mannheimer, Perez e Lyra Nabarro Olswang LLP Bernard Ilboudo
Advogados Ministère de la Santé
Lachezar Raichev
Sheila Neder Cerezetti Penkov, Markov & Boubacar Nacro
Universidade de São Paulo Partners Law Firm Center Hospital University
Sourou Sanou
Soraia Ghassan Saleh Lucia F. Miree
Saleh Advogados American University in Boubakar Toure
Associados Bulgaria Université Joseph Ki-
Zerbo
Sueli Gandolfi Dallari Maya Aleksandrova
Universidade de São Paulo Cameron McKenna Etienne Seni
Nabarro Olswang LLP Cabinet Futurjuris
Teresa Ancona Lopez
Universidade de São Paulo Momyana Guneva Hama A. Diallo
Burgas Free University Université Joseph Ki-
Thiago Bottino Zerbo
FGV Direito Nikolai Hristov
Medical University of Sofia Hamidou Lamoussa
Thiago Lopes Cardoso Ouattara
Campos Pavel Petkov Societe Civile
Instituto de Direito Professionnelle d'Avocats
Sanitario Aplicado Petko Salchev Loyalty
National Center of Public
Valeria Penna Health and Analyses Harouna Kadio
Universidade Federal do
Rio de Janeiro Stanley B. Gyoshev Hervé B. N. Kpoda
University of Exeter Centre MURAZ
Vanessa Chiari
Gonçalves Victor Gugushev Hien Ollo Larousse
Universidade Federal do Gugushev & Partners Law
Rio Grande do Sul Office Irène Victoria Nebie
Societe d'Avocats Horeb
WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 173
 Issoufou Tiendrebeogo Vichuta Ly Noé Momha Michel W. Drapeau Jorge Bofill Genzsch
AAS Burkina Legal Support for Children Groupement Inter- University of Ottawa Bofill Escobar Silva
and Women Patronal du Cameroun Abogados
K. Paulin Somda Steven Barrett
Ministère de la Santé Anonymous Oscar Tsamayem Goldblatt Partners Jorge Canales G.
Contributors Dongkeu Kennedys Law
Kalhoule Ousmane Thomas A. Cromwell
Alexandre Cameroon Polycarp Forkum Borden Ladner Gervais Juan Ignacio Chamorro
United Nations LLP Sepúlveda
Kassem Salam Alain Bruno Woumbou Organisation Stabilization AMLV Abogados
Sourwema Nzetchie Mission Titilola Ayotunde-Rotifa
Université Ouaga II Juan Pablo Cox
Asibong Queenta Roland Abeng Ulisce Desmarais Leixelard
Leticia Sauret-Sakana The Abeng Law Firm The Abeng Law Firm Desmarais Desvignes Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez
Centre MURAZ Crespo
Buokejung Nsen Abeng Tarh Besong Frambo Luis Felipe Hubner
Mahamadou Barro Civitas Cameroon The Global Citizen's Anonymous UH&C Abogados
Université Joseph Ki- Initiative Contributors
Zerbo Charles Harold Kooh Luis Parada
The Abeng Law Firm Zakariaou Njoumemi Chile DLA Piper
Monique Ilboudo Development Results
Eleanor Mah Asaa Group; Université de Alvaro Mendoza Manuel Jimenez
Patrick G. Ilboudo Rights Aid for Women Yaoundé I Aylwin Mendoza Luksic & Pfingsthorn
Agence de Medecine Valencia Jara del Favero & Ried
Preventive Epanty Mbanda Anonymous Fabres
D. Moukouri & Partners Contributors Andrea Abascal
S. Ibrahim Guitanga Law Firm Jara del Favero & Ried Manuel Jose Fernandez
Barreau du Burkina Faso; Canada Fabres Barros
SCPA HOREB Gbaka Ernest Acho
Gbaka & Co. Alexander Crizzle Carlos Ossandon Salas Marcelo Alfredo Villalón
Simon Kabore University of Eluchans y Compañia Calderón
Réseau Accès aux Henry Usim Kalle Saskatchewan Abogados Universidad de Chile
Médicaments Essentiels
Hyacinthe Fansi Amir Attaran Caterina Guidi Moggia María Inés Horvitz
Souleymane Ngassam, Fansi & Mouafo University of Ottawa Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez Lennon
Tassembedo Avocats Associés Universidad de Chile
Centre MURAZ Brian Langille Cristóbal Bonacic M.
Isidore Baudouin University of Toronto Pontificia Universidad María Isabel Cornejo
Ter Tiero Elias Dah Ndzana Católica de Chile Plaza
Centre MURAZ Cabinet ISN Consultant Brooks Arcand-Paul Universidad de Chile
Indigenous Bar Debora Espinoza Elo
Tiendrebeogo T. l. J. J. Claude Siewe Association in Canada Martín Besio
Stephane Siewe & Partners Law Firm Edmundo Varas Karmy Hernández
Carolyn Greene Morales & Besa Universidad Diego
Anonymous Jasmine Diane Silabing Athabasca University Portales
Contributors Tcheungouo Epse Fernando Jamarne
Ouethy Daniel M. Campbell Alessandri Attorneys at Michele Daroch
Cambodia Cabinet d'Avocats Meuke Cox & Palmer Law Sagredo
Abdala & Cía.
Chak Sopheap Joseph Ngoupayo Dwight Newman Fernando Lolas Stepke
Cambodian Center for Université de Yaoundé I University of Universidad de Chile Omar Morales
Human Rights Saskatchewan Montt y Cía. Abogados
Laurence Idelette Fernando Maturana
Fil B. Tabayoyong, Jr. Djeutchou Mouafo Fabien Gélinas Crino Patricio Morales
Pannasastra University of NFM Avocats Associés McGill University Eyzaguirre y Cía., Aguirre
Cambodia Abogados Pérez Donoso Estudio
Michel Antoine Mben Gaynor Roger Jurídico
Kimheang Long Kanga Shibley Righton LLP Gabriela Novoa
NFM Avocats Associés Red de Salud UC Ramon Garcia Odgers
Sereyrath Kiri Graham J. Reynolds CHRISTUS Universidad Católica de
Husky & Partners Nadine Bethmba Yanou University of British Concepcion
Columbia Gonzalo Hoyl Moreno
Sophea Im Njang Simon Enow Hoyl Alliende & Cía. Raúl Novoa Galán
Integrated Solutions & MBI Nchenge Law Jabeur Fathally Abogados
Development Consulting Chambers Université d'Ottawa Ricardo Lillo
Humberto A. Sánchez Universidad Diego
Sopheak Loeung Njini Futrih Ngong Rose Karen Busby Pacheco Portales
BNG Legal Regional Hospital Bamenda University of Manitoba Proyecto Inocentes
Defensoría Penal Pública Ricardo Reveco Urzúa
Léo Fugazza Carey Law Firm

174
Zarko Luksic Sandoval Claudia Maria Velez
AMLV Abogados Velez
Universidad de Medellin
Anonymous
Contributors David F. Varela
Agencia Norteamericana
China de Desarrollo Internacional;
Banco Inter-Americano de
He Qingjie Desarrollo; Banco Mundial
Yunnan Provincial Health
Development Research Eduardo Cardenas
Center Dentons Cardenas &
Cardenas
Jianhong Liu
University of Macau Elizabeth Castillo
Castillo
Kaiming Liu
The Institute of Enrique Alvarez
Contemporary Lloreda Camacho & Co.
Observation
Fernando Arteaga
Li Xinfeng Suárez
Jiangsu Dongyin Law Firm Universidad del Valle
Anonymous Guillermo Hernando
Contributors Bayona Combariza
Colombia Gustavo Quintero
Navas
Abelado De La Espriella Asesores Juridicos y
De la Espriella Lawyers Consultores Empresariales
Enterprise S.A.S.
Alba Yaneth Rincón Hernando Nieto
Méndez Asociación Colombiana de
Universidad Industrial de Salud Pública
Santander
Ignacio Santamaría
Alfonso Plana Bodén Lloreda Camacho & Co.
ARI Consulting Group
S.A.S. Jaime Lombana Villalba
Jaime Lombana Villalba &
Angela Maria Ruiz Abogados
Sternberg
Universidad del Rosario Jairo Humberto
Restrepo Zea
Bernardo Carvajal Universidad de Antioquia
Sanchez
Bernardo Carvajal & Joe Bonilla Gálvez
Asociados Muñoz Tamayo &
Asociados Abogados S.A.S.
Camilo Torres-Serna
Universidad Santiago de Jorge Acosta-Reyes
Cali Universidad del Norte
Carlos Andrés Gómez Jorge Enrique Galvis
González Tovar
Universidad Jorge Tadeo Lloreda Camacho & Co.
Lozano
Luis Alberto Tafur
Carlos Arturo Toro Calderón
López Universidad del Valle
Carlos M. Molina Luisa Fernanda Cuéllar
Arrubla Ramírez
Molina Diaz & Abogados Rama Judicial- Seccional
Caquetá
Carolina Fernandez
Gomez Marcela Castro Ruiz
Universidad de los Andes
Martha Peñuela Christian Bahati
Universidad del Norte Bahalaokwibuye
Marcalex Law Firm;
Patricia Moncada Roa Université Catholique de
Universidad de los Andes Bukavu et Avocat
Patricia Vergara Christian Luzombe
Gómez - Pinzón Abogados Société Civile Force Vive
S.A.S. de la RDC
Rafael H. Gamboa Clement Shamashanga
Bernate Minga
Data & Tic Consultores Centre de Recherches
et d'Etudes sur l'Etat de
Raúl Alberto Suárez Droit en Afrique
Arcila
Coco Koyalua
Ricardo Posada Maya
Universidad de los Andes Dan Nshokano
Kashironge
Román Restrepo Villa MERCALEX - Legal and
Universidad de Antioquia Business Consulting Firm
Anonymous Déogratias Nyombo
Contributors Busangu
Réseau Nationale
Congo, Dem. Rep. des ONG pour le
Développement de la
Adolphe Kilomba Femme
Sumaili
Congolese Centre of Emmanuel Kabupwe
Transitional Justice Cabinet Emery Mukendi
Wafwana
Adonis Bope
Ngoloshanga Fabrice Konzi Yembamo
RCP/Médias ASBL Siamo
Journalisme Libre en
Alain M. Iyeti Afrique
Direction d'Etudes et
Planification du Ministère Freddy Mulamba
de la Santé Senene
Centre d'Arbitrage du
Balingene Kahombo Congo
Université de Goma
Genèse Bibi
Benjamin Ifeka Centre de Recherches
Momponza et d'Etudes sur l'Etat de
Bertin Boki Ezabu Droit en Afrique
Droits Pour Tous ASBL
Grace Beda Mbazi
Beya Siku Université de Goma
Université de Kinshasa
Grâce Muwawa
Bienfait Uwimana
Université de Goma Gustave Booloko
N'Kelly
Bruno Lapika Dimomfu Fondation Tohangi pour le
Université de Kinshasa Developpement
Cédric Mayuba Gustave Kingoma
Mokangani Barreau de
Cour Constitutionnelle Kinshasa-Gombe
de la République
Démocratique du Congo; Guy Loando Mboyo
Université de Kinshasa GLM & Associates
Charles-Mugagga Hector Lubamba
Mushizi Bashushana Ngimbi
Centre d'Echanges pour Barreau de
des Réformes Juridiques et Kinshasa-Gombe
Institutionnelles
WJP Rule of Law Index 2020
Hugues Ngoy Nsenga
Division de la Santé du
Haut Katanga
Huguette Sesep
Jacques Djoli
Université de Kinshasa
Jean Claude Ngoy Simbi
Direction du Programme
Élargi de Vaccination de
la RDC
Jean Kankolongo Senga
Tumiladi
Jean Michel Kumbu Ki
Mgimbi
Université de Kinshasa
Jean Michel Mvondo
Réseau d'Education
Civique au Congo
Jean Paul Habibu Safari
Jean Pierre Ostchudi
Omanga
Cabinet d'Avocats
Otschudi Omanga and
Associates
Jean-Paul Divengi
Nzambi
Fondation Bongisa Mokili
Joseph Antoine Ngoto
Ngoie Ngalingi
Université de Kisangani
Joseph Kayembe
Mutamba
Laurent Okamo Okuma
Okuma Law Office
Lebrun Kembo Nsayi
Fondation Bongisa Mokili
Marcellin Lebon Kalera
Barreau de Goma;
Université de Goma
Marie Nyombo Zaina
Réseau Nationale
des ONG pour le
Développement de la
Femme
Moîse Abdou Muhima
Centre de Recherches et
d'Etudes sur l'Etat de Droit
en Afrique; Université de
Kinshasa
Nicaise Chikuru
Munyiogwarha
Chikuru & Associés
175
 Patrick Nsimba Mata Armando Guardia Randall Madrigal Patrice K. Kouassi Marko Lovrić
Club des Amis Damien Guardia & Cubero Madrigal Marko Lovrić Law Office
Colegio de Farmacéuticos Pierre Diavatche
Paul Kabongo Arnoldo Andre Tinoco de Costa Rica Ordre des Avocats de Côte Martina Kolar
Lexincorp d'Ivoire
Rachel Kangila Kamesa Rodrigo Oreamuno Rudolf Gregurek
Centre de Recherches Benjamin Gutierrez Séhéna-Dramane University of Zagreb
et d'Etudes sur l'Etat de Contreras Rubén Hernández Valle Cabinet d'Avocats Hivat et
Droit en Afrique BG&A Abogados Universidad de Costa Rica Associés Tomislava Furcic
Corporativos Law Office Tomislava
Rodino Tshibuyi Sergio Amador Hasbun Séraphin Nene Furcic
Mbuyandayi Carlos H. Pacheco Batalla Legal Université de Bouaké
AB&P Abogados Višnja Drenški Lasan
Roger Kabeya Susana Fallas Barboza Simone Assa-Akoh Law Firm Višnja Drenški
Barreau de Carmen Zúñiga Aselecom Abogados Association des Femmes Lasan
Kinshasa-Gombe Quesada Juristes de Côte d'Ivoire
GLC Abogados Tomás Quirós Jiménez Zlata Đurđević
Roger Mukendi M. Central Law Souleymane Sakho University of Zagreb
Réseau Nationale Daniela Durán Azofeifa Scpa Sakho-Yapobi-Fofana
des ONG pour le Aselecom Abogados Victoria van Ginkel & Associes Zoran Vukic
Développement de la Mourelo Vukic & Partners Law Firm
Femme Enrique López Jiménez Bufete Guardia & Cubero Tigby Junior Franck
Dentons Wilfried Anonymous
Roger Mulamba Anonymous Ivoire-Juriste Contributors
Katamba Ewald Acuña Blanco Contributors
Cabinet d'Avocats RMK & Bufete Acuña & Asociados Anonymous Czech Republic
Associes Cote d'Ivoire Contributors
Federico Morales Arkady Alexandrov
Samy Samutondi Chaves Aliou Niangadou Croatia
Ikomba Central Law Daniel Bartoň
Conseil Supérieur de la Arsene Dable Alan Bosnar
Magistrature; Université Francisco José Aguilar University of Rijeka Jan Hurdík
de Kinshasa Urbina Bernice N'Guessan and Masaryk University
Comité de Derechos Cynthia N'Guessan Alan Soric
Symphorien Kapinga K. Humanos Soric & Tomekovic Dunda Jan Poláček
Nkashama Diallo Sissoko Attorneys Poláček, Tryznová & Prud-
Centre de Recherches J. Federico Campos Genevieve lová, Attorneys at Law
et d'Etudes sur l'Etat de Calderón Réseau Paix et Sécurité Anita Krizmanić
Droit en Afrique Lexpenal Abogados; des Femmes de l'Espace Macesic & Partners Law Jiří Andrýsek
Universidad de Costa Rica Offices
Thérèse Mambu Nyangi Eric Bably Jitka Kadlcikova
Mondo José Antonio Muñoz BK & Associés Arsen Bacic Schoenherr Attorneys at
Université de Kinshasa Dentons Muñoz Croatian Academy of Law
Fotienworo Mathias Science and Arts
Toussaint Kwambamba Kendall David Ruiz Coulibaly Juraj Juhás
Bala Jiménez Societe d'Avocats Boris Kozjak Glatzová & Co. s.r.o.
Barreau de Kinshasa- Aselecom Abogados Jurisfortis Boris Kozjak Law Firm
Matete; University of Lukáš Prudil
Bandundu; Université Luis González Aguilar Geraldine Boris Šavorić AK PRUDIL a spol., s.r.o.
Catholique du Congo Universidad de Costa Rica Odehouri-Koudou Šavorić & Partners LLC
Barreau de Côte d'Ivoire Michal Peškar
Vianney Kanku María del Rocío Quirós Branko Smerdel
Action Contre l'Impunité Arroyo Jean-Louis Flaubert University of Zagreb Pavel Holec
pour les Droits Humains Bufete AG Legal Lobe Holec, Zuska & Partneri
Institut International de la Darko Jurišić s.r.o.
Yves-Junior Lumingu Rafael Quirós Haute Pratique du Droit General Hospital
Manzanza Bustamante "Dr. J. Benčević" Radek Matouš
Université de Kikwit Central Law Jules Gotre Eversheds Sutherland
Amepouh Floriana Bulić-Jakuš Dvořák Hager
Anonymous Rafael Rodriguez University of Zagreb
Contributors Salazar Kignaman Soro Simona Stočesová
La Firma de Abogados CR KS & Associés Ivana Manovelo University of West
Costa Rica Macesic & Partners Law Bohemia
Ramón María Yglesias Kouame Yves Roland Offices
Alexa Narváez Arauz Piza Yao Stepan Holub
Lexincorp Bufete Mora, Yglesias & Roy International Ivo Grga Holubova Advokati s.r.o.
Asociados
Alvaro Aguilar Paterne Mambo Mario Krka Tomas Cihula
Aguilar Castillo Love Université Félix Kinstellar
Houphouët-Boigny Marko Borsky

176
Tomáš Láska Dominica Jefrey Lizardo Trajano Vidal Gustavo Ortega Trujillo
KF Legal Instituto Tecnológico de Potentini A. Ortega Abogados &
Charlotte Jeremy-Cuffy Santo Domingo Fundación Justicia y Asociados
Tomas Matejovsky Crossroads Centre Transparencia
Cameron McKenna Jesus Feris-Iglesias James Pilco Luzuriaga
Nabarro Olswang LLP Gina J. Abraham Fundación Dominicana de Virgilio A. Mendez Universidad del Azuay
Norde and Lambert Infectologia, Inc. Amaro
Veronika Prudlová Chambers Mendez & Asociados Jamil Castro Solorzano
Poláček, Tryznová & Juan Manuel Suero
Prudlová, Attorneys at Anonymous Aaron Suero & Pedersini Anonymous José Antonio
Law Contributors Contributors Bustamante Salvador
Juan Vizcaíno Canario Bustamante &
Vojtech Steininger Dominican Republic AbogadoSDQ Ecuador Bustamante Law Firm
Hartmanova & Steininger
Alberto A. Biaggi Julio Cesar De la Rosa Alberto Vivanco Aguirre José Luis Tapia
Zuzana Candigliota Dimitri Tiburcio González Peñaherrera &
Biaggi Attorneys at Law Alianza Dominicana Asociados Abogados Jose Ontaneda
Anonymous Contra la Corrupción Ontaneda & Posso
Contributors Alfredo Lachapel Alexis Noboa Arregui Abogados
Lachapel Toribio - Kelvin W. Herrera Cevallos & Noboa Estudio
Denmark Abogados, S.R.L. Escuela de Formación y Jurídico Juan Carlos Riofrío
Capacitación Ciudadana Martínez-Villalba
Anne Brandt Arismendi Díaz Santana Alfredo G. Brito Universidad de los
Christensen Loraine Maldonado Brito & Pinto Hemisferios
Advokatfirmaet Brandt Carlos Alfredo Sosa De Mesa Abogados
Christensen La Cruz Ana Belen Posso Juan José Campaña del
Universidad Autónoma de Manuel Alejandro Ruiz Fernandez Castillo
Christian Bay Nielsen Santo Domingo; Oficina Arias Ontaneda & Posso Larrea y Asociados
STORM Advokatfirma Nacional de Estadísticas Abogados
Manuel Colomé Julio Enrique Neira
Christian Bentz Denny E. Díaz Mordán Hospital Pediátrico Dr. Bryan Abdón Mendoza García
LIND Advokataktieselskab Universidad Nacional Hugo Mendoza Muñoz Colectivo Feminista Tejido
Pedro Henríquez Ureña Universidad Laica Eloy Diverso
Dan B. Geary María Esther Fernández Alfaro de Manabí
Bech-Bruun Law Firm Elisabetta Pedersini A. De Pou Lucía Andrade Martínez
Aaron Suero & Pedersini Raful Sicard Polanco & Carlos Carrasco Yépez Asociación de Municipalidades
Hans Henrik Edlund Fernández AC Abogados & Ecuatorianas
Aarhus University Fabiola Medina Garnes Consultores
Medina Garrigó Abogados Mary Fernández Luis Ponce Palacios
Jacob Schall Holberg Rodríguez Ciro Pazmino Zurita Estudio Jurídico Quevedo
Bech-Bruun Law Firm Fernando J. Jiménez Headrick Rizik Alvarez & P&P Abogados & Pone
Puello Herrera Oficina de Fernández
Jakob S. Johnsen Abogados & Notaría Claudia Storini Marcelo Proaño
HjulmandKaptain Rafael Manuel Universidad Andina Simón Paredes
Fernando Roedan Lamarche Bolívar Pontificia Universidad
Jannik Haahr Antonsen Roedán & Asociados Fundación Dominicana Católica del Ecuador
Codex Advokater P/S contra el Mal de Parkinson Diego Almeida-Guzman
Georges Santoni Recio Almeida Guzman & Mario I. Armendáriz Y.
Jens Rye-Andersen Russin Vecchi & Heredia Roberto Medina Reyes Asociados Law Firm Armendáriz & Andino
Advokatfirmaet Eurojuris Bonetti Jorge Prats Abogados & Abogados
Aalborg Consultores Elizabeth Grijalva Yerovi
Gianna D`Oleo Fernando Sacoto Mary Cabrera Paredes
John Brodersen Doleo Consulting Rodolfo Mesa Ecuadorian Public Health Sendas
University of Copenhagen Mesa Abogados Society
Gilbert M. De la Cruz Miguel Ángel Gavilánez
Kim Trenskow Álvarez Rosa Ypania Burgos Francisco Dávalos Guerrero
Kromann Reumert Universidad Nacional Minaya Morán Universidad Estatal de
Pedro Henríquez Ureña Universidad Autónoma de González Peñaherrera & Bolívar
Marianne Granhøj Santo Domingo Asociados Abogados
Kromann Reumert Henry Montás R. Pablo Andino Fiallos
Montas Abogados Smerly Rodriguez Gerardo Aguirre Vallejo Armendáriz & Andino
Poul Hvilsted Jimenez Estudio Juridico Vivanco & Abogados
Horten Law Firm Iván A. Cunillera Fundación Justicia y Vivanco
Alburquerque Transparencia Ramiro Echeverria Tapia
Trine Binderup William Cunillera & Gustavo Arrobo Universidad San Francisco
ADVODAN Aalborg A/S Asociados Stalin Ciprián Moncayo de Quito
Ciprián Arriaga & Asocs. González Peñaherrera &
Anonymous Jaime M. Senior Asociados Abogados Renato Enríquez M.
Contributors Fernández Teresa Mártez FEXLAW
Headrick Rizik Alvarez &
Fernández

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 177

 Rosa Cecilia Baltazar Arturo Magaña Jose Ernesto Sanchez Kari Käsper Hiruy Wubie
Yucailla Alvarado y Alvarado Arias Law Estonian Human Rights Gebreegziabher
Movimiento Indígena y Abogados Centre La Trobe University
Campesina de Tungurahua Jose Roberto Romero
Benjamin Valdez Iraheta Romero Pineda & Madis Kiisa Khalid Kebede Gelaw
Santiago Salazar Benjamin Valdez & Asociados Laus & Partners Law Bahir Dar University
Intriago Asociados Office
Sempertegui Abogados Josué Lemus Kidist Sheferaw
Camila Villafuerte Arias Law Maksim Greinoman
Santiago Solines Romero Pineda & Advokaadibüroo Kumlachew Dagne
Moreno Asociados Kelly Beatriz Romero Greinoman & Co. Kumlachew Dagne and
Solines & Asociados Rodríguez Associates Law Office
Abogados Carlos Arturo Nassar Abogados Margit Vutt
Muyshondt Supreme Court of Estonia Matias Girma
Sylvia Bonilla Bolaños Muyshondt & Asociados Marcella Romero Matias Law Office
Comisión Ecuménica de Dentons Muñoz Merle Erikson
Derechos Humanos Carlos Enrique Castillo University of Tartu Mehari Redae
García Mardoqueo Josafat Addis Ababa University
Tatiana Villacres Romero Pineda & Tóchez Molina Tanel Küün
Quantics Consulting Asociados RSM El Salvador Law Office TARK Mekdem Belayneh
Group Mekdem Law Office
Christian Bará Cousin Mariana Nochez Urmas Kukk
Anonymous Bara Legal Corporation Palacios Law Firm Koch & Partners Mesfin Tafesse
Contributors Arias Law Mesfin Tafesse &
David Claros Anonymous Associates
Egypt García & Bodán Oscar Torres Cañas Contributors
García & Bodán Rahel Alemayehu
Ahmed Ramadan David Osvaldo Toledo Ethiopia
Shalakany Law Office Universidad Católica de El Piero Antonio Rusconi Samrawit Behailu
Salvador Gutiérrez Abdurrahman Seid Tameru Wondm Agegnehu
Ayman Sultan Central Law Law Office of Law Office
Muhammad Délmer Edmundo Abdurrahman Seid
Ayman Sultan Law Firm Rodríguez Cruz Porfirio Díaz Fuentes Selam Abere
Escuela Superior de DLM, Abogados, Notarios, Abebe Asamere Endale
Bassem S. Wadie Economía y Negocios Consultores Tameru Wondm
Urology and Nephrology Abiyou Girma Tamrat Agegnehu
Center Diego Martín-Menjívar Rebeca Atanacio de Abiyou Girma Law Office Tameru Wondm Agegnehu
Consortium Legal Basagoitia Law Office
Hadir Helal Farghaly Escalón & Atanacio Abraham Zewdie Haile
Open Chance & Felix Canizales Valencia Tamrat Assefa
Associates, Dr. Helal Arias Law Roberta Gallardo Alebachew Birhanu Tamrat Assefa Liban Law
Fraghaly Law Firm Arias Law Enyew Office
Feridee Alabí Bahir Dar University
Ibrahim Ahmad Romero Pineda & Rommell Sandoval Tegegne Zergaw
Ain Shams University Asociados I&D Consulting Alemu Meheretu Bahir Dar University
Jimma University
Khaled El Shalakany Francisco Murillo Anonymous Temesgen Sisay Beyene
Shalakany Law Office Central Law Contributors Ameha Mekonnen Bahir Dar University
Asfaw
Mahmoud Onsy Guillermo Alexander Estonia Ameha Mekonnen & Tsedey Girma Mengistu
New Giza University Parada Gámez Associates Law Office Tameru Wondm Agegnehu
Universidad Aare Tark Law Office
Mamdooh Centroamericana José Law Office TARK Berhane Ghebray
Abdelhameed Simeón Cañas Kahsay Tsehai Wada
Abdelmottlep Andres Vutt Berhane Ghebray and Addis Ababa Universty
Lotus Law Firm Ingrid Lizama University of Tartu Associates
Wubshet Kassaw
Mohamed Abdelaal Israel Antonio Ene Soop Dessalegn Tigabu Haile
Alexandria University Chinchilla Sánchez Law Office Narlex Bahir Dar University Yihun Zeleke Mengesha
Universidad Bahir Dar University
Randa Salaheldin Rezk Centroamericana José Gaabriel Tavits Fikadu Asfaw Demissie
Hewlett Packard Simeón Cañas University of Tartu Fikadu Asfaw & Associates Yodit Gurji Argaw
Enterprise Law Office Fikadu Asfaw & Associates
Javier Enrique Alfaro Hannes Küün Law Office
Anonymous Varela Law Office TARK Girma Kassa Kumsa
Contributors Espino Nieto Arsi University Zewdu Mengesha
Jaanus Mägi Bahir Dar University
El Salvador José Eduardo Magnusson Guadie Sharew
Barrientos Aguirre Bahir Dar University Anonymous
Adán Araujo SBA, Firma Legal & Kaja Põlluste Contributors
Arias Law Consultora, S.A. de C.V. University of Tartu

178
Finland Tommi Koivistoinen Samir Abdelly Anonymous Nona Kurdovanidze
Asianajotoimisto Tuutti Abdelly & Chaary Law Contributors Georgian Young Lawyers'
Anna Hurmerinta- Oy Firm Association
Haanpää Georgia
University of Turku Tuomas Hupli Sébastien Ducamp Tamta Nutsubidze
University of Turku Sesame Avocats Ana Chelidze Begiashvili & Co.
Ari Miettinen JSC Basisbank
Fimlab Laboratories Vesa Annola Soungalo Ouarza Goita Anonymous
University of Vaasa Ana Rekhviashvili Contributors
Arja R. Aro Véronique Tuffal- Business Legal Bureau
EduRes Consulting Walter Reinovich Nerson Germany
Vezikko Tuffal-Nerson Douarre et Anna Arganashvili
Jaakko Salminen International Association Associés Partnership for Human Alexander Putz
University of Turku of Arbitrators of Finland Rights Putz und Partner
Yanick Alvarez-de
Johanna Niemi Anonymous Selding Dzabuli Danelia Anna Lindenberg
University of Turku Contributors GLCC Law Firm
Anonymous Beckmann-Koßmann
Johannes Lamminen France Contributors George Gotsadze
University of Turku Curatio International Carsten Momsen
Antoine Berthe The Gambia Foundation Freie Universität Berlin
Jorma Saloheimo Barreau de Lille
Labour Court of Finland Abdou A. Kanteh Giorgi Begiashvili Christian Wolff
Carlos Miguel Herrera Nova Scotia-Gambia Begiashvili & Co. Schock Rechtsanwälte
Kimmo Nuotio Université de Cergy- Association
University of Helsinki Pontoise Giorgi Kldiashvili Christina Reifelsberger
Aji Sainey Kah Institute for Development HessenChemie
Lauri Railas Christophe Chabrot The Gambia Public of Freedom of Information
Railas Attorneys Ltd. Lumière Université Lyon 2 Utilities Regulatory Christoph Hexel
Authority Grigol Gagnidze Heuking Kühn Lüer Wojtek
Markku Fredman Cyril Bloch Georgian Barristers &
Fredman & Mansson Law Aix-Marseille Université Francois S. Mendy Lawyers International Christoph Lindner
Firm Nova Scotia-Gambia Observatory Rechtsanwälte Dr. Lindner
Dominique Inchauspé Association
Matti Ilmari Niemi Cabinet Inchauspé & Ivdity Chikovani Dirk Vielhuber
University of Eastern Remy Loubna Farage Curatio International BG BAU
Finland Farage Andrews Law Foundation
Elisabeth Grabli Practice Friederike Lemme
Matti Tolvanen Ketevan Krialashvili Kanzlei Lemme
University of Eastern Florence Debord Malick F. M'bai Taxpayers Union in
Finland Lumière Université Lyon 2 Fajara Chambers Georgia Gerhard Wegen
Gleiss Lutz
Mika J. Lehtimäki Georges Sioufi Maria Saine Lasha Gogiberidze
Attorneys-at-Law TRUST SRDB Law Firm Institute for Human Rights BGI Legal Gernot A. Warmuth
and Development in Africa Scheiber & Partner
Mika Launiala Guillaume Protière Levan Avalishvili
University of Eastern Lumière Université Lyon 2 Momodou A. Bah Institute for Development Gregor Dornbusch
Finland Hands on Care of Freedom of Information Baker McKenzie
Isabelle Carbuccia
Milka Sormunen Ivch Law Firm Muhammed B. Sowe Levan Gotua Hauke Hagena
University of Helsinki Attorney General's Begiashvili & Co. ProMINT - Tax & Legal
Juliette Chapelle Chambers; Ministry of
Patrick Lindgren Cabinet Chapelle Avocat Justice of The Gambia Lina Ghvinianidze Henning Rosenau
Advocare Law Office Martin Luther University
Marie-Christine Olymatou Cox Nata Kazakhashvili of Halle-Wittenberg
Raimo Isoaho Cimadevilla UNAIDS Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi
University of Turku Cimadevilla Avocats State University Hermann Bietz
Peter K. Mendy Bietz Arbitration
Raimo Lahti Monique Stengel A.J. Njie Law Chambers; Natalia Geladze
University of Helsinki University of the Gambia GG Legal Hermann Pünder
Nicole Stolowy Bucerius Law School
Sakari Suominen HEC Paris Rachael Yvonne Mendy Natia Katsitadze
University of Turku RYM Legal Services Article 42 of the Ingo Klaus Wamser
Olivier Péan De Ponfilly Constitution Rechtsanwalt Wamser
Tatu Hyttinen Sainey Bah
University of Eastern Patrice Le Maigat University of the Gambia Natia Skhvitaridze Jakob von Kirchbach
Finland Université de Rennes 1 National Center for IMI Precision Engineering
Satang Nabaneh Disease Control and
Teuvo Pohjolainen Philippe Marin Law Hub Gambia Public Health Jessica Jacobi
University of Eastern IMAVOCATS Law Firm Kliemt.Arbeitsrecht
Finland

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 179

 Jürgen Nazarek Thomas Jürgens Nana Tawiah Okyir Konstantinos P. Anonymous
Kanzlei Dr. Jürgen Jürgens Ghana Institute of Valmas-Vloutis Contributors
Nazarek Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft Management and Public Valmas-Vloutis Law Office
mbH Administration Guatemala
Kerstin Niethammer- Kostoula Mazaraki
Jürgens Thomas Melletat Nii Nortey Nomos Law Firm Alexis Retana
Jürgens Melletat - Rechtsanwälte Hanson-Nortey Organismo de
Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft Aurum Institute Ghana Magda Kapoti-Tazedaki Investigación Judicial
mbH Volker V. Moers Tazedakis Law Firm de Costa Rica
von Moers Lawyers Peggy Addo
Marc Seifert Nobisfields Marialena Papachristou Álfaro V. L. Marroquín
Hewlett Packard Wibke Köppler Marialena Papachristou Carrillo & Asociados
Enterprise Kanzlei Oelmüller & Samuel Alesu-Dordzi Law Firm
Partner GbR ENSafrica Alfonso Carrillo M.
Martin Nebeling Nigel Bowen-Morris Carrillo & Asociados
Bird & Bird LLP Wolf Stahl Tata Kosi Foliba Stephenson Harwood
ADA Cosmetics Holding Fugar & Company Alfonso Ortiz Natareno
Martin Reufels GmbH Nikolaos Kondylis HP Abogados
Heuking Kühn Lüer Wojtek Theophilus Tawiah N. M. Kondylis & Partners
Anonymous Nobisfields Law Office Alvaro R. Cordon
Martin Sträßer Contributors Cordon, Ovalle &
Sträßer Rehm Barfield Yasmin Baba Panagiotis Gioulakos Associates
Ghana Sam Okudzeto & E-nomos Business
Monika Hagen Associates Consultants Andrés Dubón Ruiz
Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Andrew Appau Obeng Comte & Font - Legalsa
Hagen Stobe Law Anonymous Stavros Karageorgiou
Contributors Karageorgiou & Associates Angélica Lucía Aguilar
Nicola Kreutzer Benedicta Akita Law Firm Gutiérrez
Kreutzer & Kreuzau Sam Okudzeto & Greece Universidad InterNaciones
Rechtsanwälte Associates Stelios Andreadakis
Alexios Brunel University London Astrid J. Lemus
Oliver Bolthausen Charlotte Osei Athanassopoulos Rodríguez
DWF Prime Attorneys AA Law Firm Vasileios Tetokas
Daniel Arturo
Oliver Schellbach Emmanuel Maurice Alexis Anagnostakis Virginia Marroquin Gracias
Schellbach Rechtsanwälte Ankrah Anagnostakis Law Offices Theodoropoulou A.D. Sosa & Soto
Kuukuaa Legal Consulting
Othmar K. Traber Anthony G. Mavrides Xenophon Contiades David Ernesto Chacón
Ahlers & Vogel Frank Owusu-Sekyere Ballas, Pelecanos & Centre for European Estrada
Rechtsanwälte Korle Bu Teaching Associates L.P.C. Constitutional Law - Universidad de San Carlos
Hospital Themistocles and Dimitris de Guatemala
Rainer M. Hofmann Athina-Marina Tsatsos Foundation
Kanzlei im Hofhaus Franklin Glozah Christofilopoulou Diego Alejos Rivera
University of Ghana E-nomos Business Yota Kremmida Consortium Legal
Roberto Kunz-Hallstein Consultants Hewlett Packard
Rechtsanwälte Dr. Halimah El-Alawa Enterprise Diego Ricardo Pérez
Kunz-Hallstein Abdul-Baasit Avagianou Melina Sandoval
Inusah, Inusah and Klimaka Anonymous Integrum Law Firm
Roland Gross Associates Contributors
Gross Rechtsanwaelte Dionyssis Balourdos Dina Castro
Jerry Seyram Dei National Centre for Social Grenada
Sabine Barth Sam Okudzeto & Research Edson Lopez
Lange Brunner Associates Chevanev Charles Integrum Law Firm
Rechtsanwälte Eleni Kloukinioti Temple Stoke Chambers
Partnerschaft m.b.B. Kwame Owusu Transparency Emanuel Callejas A.
Agyeman International James Bristol Carrillo & Asociados
Sebastian Reinsch University of Cape Coast Henry, Henry & Bristol
Janke & Reinsch Fotini N. Skopouli Enrique Moller
Rechtsanwälte Mary Opare Harokopio University Joshua John EY Law
Central University Ghana Law Office of Evette John
Silke Graeser Georgia Sitou Gabriel Arturo Muadi
Melisa Amarteifio Georgia Sitou Law Office Martin Forde Garcia
Stefan Huster Sam Okudzeto & St. George's University Muadi & Murga
Ruhr-University Bochum Associates Grace Katsoulis
Ballas, Pelecanos & Tanya K. Lambert Harvey Alvarez
Stephan Sander Nana Esi Aferba Ahlijah Associates L.P.C. Wilkinson, Wilkinson & HP Abogados
Terheddebrügge Sander Ariel Avery Law Wilkinson
Ilias Anagnostopoulos
Thomas Feltes Anagnostopoulos Law Yurana Phillip
CPT, Council of Europe; Office Afi Ventour & Co.
Ruhr-University Bochum

180
J. Guillermo Gándara Rodrigo Barillas Kekoura Kourouma Sarika Gajraj Jorge Arturo Reina
Espino WINGS Guatemala The Global Fund to Fight Dentons Delany Interiano
Asociación AIDS, Tuberculosis and Bufete ECIJA Honduras
Iberoamericana de Sergio Alejandro Peña Malaria Stephen Roberts
Juristas del Derecho del Mandujano Hughes, Fields & Stoby Jorge Jesús Kawas
Trabajo y la Seguridad Corporacion FG Globalex Kpana Emmanuel Mejía
Social Bamba Yaquelin Gonzalez K&M Abogados, S.A.
Vilma Chavez De Pop Ligue Guinéene des Droits Ricardo
Jorge Luis Rodas Garcia International Baby Food de L'Homme Georgetown Public Jorge Lopez
Nexus Legal Action Network Hospital Corporation Lopez & Asociados,
Lamine 1 Nabe Attorneys at Law
Jorge Mario Andrino Anonymous Barreau de Guinée Anonymous
Grotewold Contributors Contributors Jose Miguel Alvarez
Macky Thiam BLP
José Miguel Argueta Guinea Honduras
Bone Mahawa Sylla Juan José Alcerro Milla
Abdoulaye Korsé Balde VIE+ (REGAP+) Adolfo Pineda Padilla Aguilar Castillo Love
Juan Andrés Marroquín C. Conseil National de BLP
Carrillo & Asociados l'Ordre des Medecins de Mamadou Sanoussy Lino Carmenate Millán
Guinée Barry Aida Lazarus Centro de Investigación
Juan Jose Porras Cabinet d'Avocats BAO HondurasLawyers y Desarrollo en Salud,
Castillo Adama Kourouma et Fils Trabajo y Ambiente
GT Legal Allan Fernando
Adrien Tossa Montcho Mandy Kader Konde Alvarenga Gradis Lisandro Valle Perez
Juan Pablo Carrasco de Mêmes Droits pour Tous Fondation Santé et Fundación San Alonso Hospital y Clinicas DIME,
Groote Développement Durable Rodriguez S.A.
Central Law Aimé Christophe Labilé
Kone Oumar Baldé Claribel Medina Lurbin España
Juan Sebastian Soto L'Étude Légale Labilé Central Law Asociación Hombro a
Lacape Sékou Kouyaté Hombro
A.D. Sosa & Soto Aimé Raphael Haba Laboratoire d'Analyse Claudia Marcela
Avocats Sans Frontières Socio Anthropologique de Midence Soto Marlon Jose Ortiz
Kate Flatley Guinée Guinée Arias Law Maritnez
Women's Justice Initiative Universidad Tecnológica
Ali Badara Bangoura Théodore Michel Loua Daniela Puerto Irias Centroamericana
Lorena Marcucci de Barreau de Guinée Organisation Guinéenne Consultorio Legal Puerto
Galotta de Defense des Droit de Marvin Rigoberto
Bufete GR Legal Alpha Amadou D. S. l'Homme David Armando Espinal Pinel
Bah Urtecho López Marvin Espinal Law Firm
Luis Fernando Catalan Organisation Guinéenne Thierno Amadou Universidad de Navarra
Alvarez de Defense des Droit de Fougoumba Barry Miguel Armando Zapata
Hospital Nacional de l'Homme Institut de Recherche sur Dennis Emilio Hércules Izaguirre
Mazate la Démocratie et l'Etat de Rosa García & Bodán
Amadou Babahein Droit Bufete Melara & Asociados
Luis Pedro Cazali Camara Milton Carcamo
Barreau de Guinée Thierno Diafar Diallo Eduardo René Rivera
Marcos Palma Koûmy Law Firm Mendoza Nidia Vanessa Lopez
Integrum Law Firm Balla Camara Bufete ECIJA Honduras Alonzo
Association Guinéenne Thierno Souleymane Clinica Medica Privada
Mario Roberto Guadrón pour le Développement Barry Ely Abel Pinto Jimenez
Rouanet Intégral de l'Enfant et du Coalition Guinéenne Bufete Abogado Pinto Rafael Gomez Mateo
Palomo y Porras Jeune pour la Cour Penale Grupo Legalsa
Internationale et Autres Emy Carolina Castellon
Marvin Javier Dávila David Beavogui Organismes Juarez Roberto Alejandro
Villegas Barreau de Guinée Asociación Hombro a Williams Cruz
Universidad Rafael Anonymous Hombro Bufete ECIJA Honduras
Landívar de Guatemala Fatoumata Binta Diallo Contributors
Gabriela María Williams Roberto M. Zacarias
Mynor García Fatoumta Baldé Yansané Guyana Cruz Zacarias & Asociados
Carrillo & Asociados Coalition des Femmes Bufete ECIJA Honduras
Leaders de Guinée Adrian Smitih Roque Pascua Bográn
Oscar Rivas Villanueva Toussaint Law Firm J. Humberto Medina Bufete Pascua &
GR Legal Foromo Frédéric Loua Alva Asociados
Mêmes Droits pour Tous Eva Scott Central Law
Pedro Mendoza Sandra Elizabeth
Montano Gilbert Tohon Camara Hari Ramkarran Johana Bermudez Gomez Ventura
Iurisconsulti, Abogados y Barreau de Guinée Cameron & Shepherd Universidad Autónoma de Universidad Tecnológica
Notarios Honduras Centroamericana
Joseph Kolèmou Madan Rambaran
Raúl Bolaños del Aguila
Escuela de Gobierno

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 181

 Sergio Sánchez A. Dániel G. Szabó and Ishwar Chandra Vasanthi Nimushakavi Noverizky Tri Putra
Colegio de Abogados de Tamás Fazekas Dwivedi National Academy of Legal Pasaribu
Honduras Hungarian Helsinki Police Uttar Pradesh Studies and Research AM Oktarina Counsellors
Committee at Law
Valerya Kartik Ganapathy Vidya Bhushan Rawat
Theodoracopoulos Gábor Baruch IndusLaw Sandi Adila
Arias Law Baruch Law Firm Vijay Raghavan Mochtar Karuwin Komar
Kartikay Sharma Tata Institute of Social
Vanessa Oquelí Krisztina Karsai Hewlett Packard Sciences Sianti Candra
García & Bodán University of Szeged Enterprise Podomoro University
Vipender Mann
Anonymous Orsolya Rácz Keshao Patil KNM & Partners, Law Sunardjo Sumargono
Contributors Winkler and Partner Law Tirpude College of Social Offices Law Office of Semar
Firm Work Suryakencana Cipta
Hong Kong SAR, China Y. S. Kusuma Justiceindo
Reka Mezo Nirmal Kanti All India Institute of
Amirali B. Nasir Chakrabarti Medical Sciences Tom Nugroho
NASIRS Viktor Oliver Lorincz West Bengal National LexSarya
Hungarian Academy of University of Juridical Yashomati Ghosh
David C. Donald Sciences Sciences National Law School of Tristam Pascal
The Chinese University of India University Moeliono
Hong Kong Zsolt Zengődi P. Raviprasad Catholic University of
Tempus Law Associates Anonymous Parahyangan
James A. Rice Anonymous Contributors
Contributors Padmaja Kaul Anonymous
James L. W. Wong IndusLaw Indonesia Contributors
Century Chambers India
Prakash Prabhakarrao Agustinus Dawarja Iran
Lam San Keung Anil Fernandes Doke LexRegis
Messrs. F. Zimmern & Co. Anil Fernandes & Bharati Vidyapeeth Ahmad Daryani
Associates Deemed University Alamo D. Laiman Mazandaran University of
Michael Chai Legisperitus Lawyers Medical Sciences
Bernacchi Chambers Anil Paleri Rajas Kasbekar
CRK Legal Alexandra Gerungan, Anooshiravan Karimi
Michael Vidler Anshul Prakash and Annisa Tharian, and Karimi & Associates Law
Vidler & Co. Solicitors Deeksha Malik S. Ramakrishnan Made Susanti Firm
Khaitan & Co. Makarim & Taira S.
P. Y. Lo Sachin Bhakar Arash Izadi
Gilt Chambers Anupamaa V. Hewlett Packard Diana Kusumasari Dr. Izadi & Associates
AVRC Legal; Dr. Kainth & Enterprise Yeo & Co. Law Firm
Paul Shieh Associates Atiyeh Rezaei and
Sanjay Janardan Patil Eddy M. Leks Shirin O. Entezari
Philip Dykes Aprajita Rana BDH Industries Limited Leks & Co. Dr. Entezari & Associates
Bernacchi Chambers AZB & Partners Law Firm
Sarojanand Jha Felicia Tania
Rick Glofcheski Ashok Ramgir Vedanta Legal Legisperitus Lawyers Hamid Reza Bakhshi
University of Hong Kong Harsh Impex Moakher
Satishchandra Kumar Ferdinand Jullaga
Shing Hing Ip Atul Sharma University of Mumbai Mochtar Karuwin Komar Kamiar Alaei
Hong Kong Law Society Link Legal India Law Institute for International
Services Saurabh Misra Hadi Pratomo Health and Education
Tam Yat Hung Saurabh Misra & Universitas Indonesia
University of Hong Kong Avik Biswas Associates, International Mehran Tamadonfar
IndusLaw Lawyers Immanuel A. Indrawan University of Nevada
Anonymous Indrawan Darsyah
Contributors Avimukt Dar Shankar Das Santoso Mohammad Rahmani
IndusLaw Tata Institute of Social Bayan Emrooz
Hungary Sciences Jamin Ginting International Law Firm
Bontha V. Babu JAT & Co. Law Firm
Ákos Bajorfi Indian Council of Medical Siddhartha George Sanaz Alasti
Noerr & Partners Law Research Poovayya & Co. Jardin Bahar
Office Yahya Rayegani
Daya Krishan Mangal Subhrarag Mukherjee Mahesa Rumondor Praelegal Iran
Alexandra Bognar IIHMR University Hewlett Packard Adnan Kelana Haryanto &
Enterprise Hermanto Anonymous
András Jakab Gauri Bhongale Contributors
University of Salzburg Hewlett Packard Uday Singh Ahlawat Maurice Maulana
Enterprise Ahlawat & Associates Situmorang
Balázs Tóth Dentons
Hungarian Helsinki Harsh Ramgir
Committee Harsh Impex

182
Italy Riccardo Del Punta Nadine C. Yosuke Shimamura Kazakhstan
University of Florence Atkinson-Flowers Shimamura Law Office
Alberto Fantini Law Offices of Nadine C. Amangeldy
Studio Legale Tonucci & Roberto Bin Atkinson-Flowers Yuichiro Sato Shormanbayev
Partners Università di Ferrara Tokyo Gakugei University International Legal
Narda Graham-Laird Initiative
Alessia Ottavia Cozzi Roberto Ceccon DunnCox Yukinori Hashida
Area Science Park Aclaw Ceccon & Associati Kodera Matsuda Law Anargul Kuntuganova
Sonia D. Gatchair Office Nazarbayev University
Anna Simonati Roberto Rosapepe University of the West
University of Trento University of Salerno Indies Anonymous Annel Shvechikhina
Contributors Unicase LLP
Antonella Antonucci Rocchina Staiano Vincent A. Chen
Università Aldo Moro Università di Teramo Chen Green & Co. Jordan Arlan Yerzhanov
PricewaterhouseCoopers
Antonio Cassatella Anonymous Anonymous Abdulellah AL- Tax & Advisory LLP
University of Trento Contributors Contributors Nawayseh
Mu'tah University Artem Timoshenko
Antonio Viscomi Jamaica Japan Unicase LLP
University of Catanzaro Ali M. Aldabbas
Allan S. Wood Akifumi Mochizuki University of Petra Aybek Kambaliyev
Astolfo Di Amato Livingston, Alexander & Shizuoka Prefecture Bar Unicase LLP
Astolfo Di Amato e Levy Association Bashar H. Malkawi
Associati University of Jordan Dmitry Chumakov
Anthony Clayton Emi Uchida Sayat Zholshy and
Elisa Stefanini University of the West Atsumi & Sakai Farah Al-Majali Partners
Studio Legale Portolano Indies International
Cavallo Junko Ogushi Consolidated For Legal Evgeny Zhovtis
Antoinette Atsumi & Sakai Consultations Kazakhstan International
Emanuele Cortesi Barton-Gooden Bureau for Human Rights
CMA Studio Legale University of the West Junko Suetomi George Hazboun and Rule of Law
Indies Baker McKenzie; Waseda International
Emanuele Scafato University Consolidated For Legal Gulzhan Chimbayeva
Audrey Brown Consultations Green Clinic
Gherardo Carullo Kaoru Takamatsu
University of Milan Donovan Jackson Hayabusa Asuka Law Hisham A. Kassim Kopzhan Musrepov
Nunes Scholefield DeLeon Offices Curtis, Mallet-Prevost,
Gianfranco Di Garbo & Co. Kamal Jamal Awad Colt & Mosle LLP
Baker McKenzie Mitsunari Taketani Alawamleh
Emile Leiba Tagawa Law Office University of Petra Nazym Argynbay
Giovanni Nardulli DunnCox SIGNUM Law Firm
Legance - Avvocati Naritaka Tomoeda Khaled J. Atwan
Associati Gillian Mullings Hewlett Packard Atwan & Partners Nurzhan Manasov
Naylor and Mullings Enterprise Attorneys and Legal
Giuseppe Lorenzo Rosa Consultants Nurzhan Stamkulov
Hilary Robertson- Nobuo Koinuma Synergy Partners Law Firm
Luigi Mori Hickling Tohoku Medical and Laith Nasrawin
BLR&M Studio Legale University of the West Pharmaceutical University Nasrawin Law Office Roman Podoprigora
Associato Indies Caspian Public University
Shigeji Ishiguro Motasem Mushasha
Marco Esposito J. Peter Figueroa Oguri & Ishiguro Law Al al-Bayt University Timur Yerjanov
Università di Napoli University of the West Office Al-Farabi Kazakh National
Parthenope Indies Muneera Al-Sada University
Tomohisa Muranushi Abdullah & Partners Law
Mariano Cingolani Jacqueline D. Baker McKenzie Firm Yerzhan Toktarov
University of Macerata Goulbourne Sayat Zholshy and
University of the West Toshiaki Higashi Omar Qouteshat Partners
Patrizia Magarò Indies University of Occupational
Università degli Studi di and Environmental Health Rasha Laswi Zaira Kaysar
Genova Jodi Ann Paulwell Zalloum and Laswi Law GRATA International
Office of the Cabinet Yasuyuki Suzuki Firm
Patrizio Ivo D'Andrea Hayabusa Asuka Law Zhanat Alimanov
Università di Ferrara Kevin O. Powell Offices Yousef Saleh Khader KIMEP University
Hylton Powell, Jordan University of
Pierpaolo Martucci Attorneys-at-Law Yohei Suda Science and Technology Anonymous
University of Trieste The Law Office of Yohei Contributors
Laura D. Richards Suda Zaid Muhmoud Agaileh
Pietro Faraguna University of the West Mu'tah University Kenya
University of Trieste Indies Yoshiyuki Sato
Kobe-Ekimae Law Office Anonymous Aabid Ahmed
Contributors Bomu Hospital

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 183

 Abdulhafeez Noorani Hiram Nyaburi Alban Muriqi Sahit Bajraktari Anonymous
Daly & Inamdar, Iseme, Kamau & Maema The Kosova Rehabilitation Transformational Contributors
Advocates Advocates Centre for Torture Victims Leadership Program
Alumni Association Lebanon
Aisha Abdallah Jeremmy Okonjo Albana Rexha
Anjarwalla & Khanna Transnational Legal Ltd. Shpresa Ibrahimi Antoine G. Ghafari
Advocates Arnis Dumani Ghafari & Associates Law
Lattif Shaban Shprese Haxhijaj Firm
Atiq S. Anjarwalla Supreme Council of Kenya Bahtir Troshupa Assembly of the Republic
AC&H Legal Consultants Muslims of Kosovo Elias Chalhoub
Basri Kastrati The Arab Center for the
Benjamin Musau Lyla Latif Victims' Advocacy and Urim Pozhegu Development of the Rule
BM Musau & Co., University of Nairobi Assistance Office, Chief Urim Pozhegu Law Office of Law and Integrity
Advocates State Prosecution Office
Patrick Rugo Urim Vokshi Elias Matar
Beryl Orao Muthoga Gaturu & Co. Besfort Rrecaj Vokshi & Lata Law Firm Lex & Co. Legal Counsels
Kenya National Advocates University of Prishtina
Commission on Human Valon Hasani Hala Tyan
Rights Peter Gachuhi Doarsa Kica Awada Tyan Law Firm
Kaplan & Stratton Anonymous
Cecil Yongo Abungu Advocates Durim Llugiqi Contributors Jihad Irani
Strathmore University University of Balamand
Peter Wendoh Ehat Miftaraj Kyrgyz Republic
Christine Mukami Kosovo Law Institute Joelle Choueifati
Murangi Regina Opondo Aicholpon Alieva
Iseme, Kamau & Maema Constitution and Reform Ermir Ahmetaj (Jorupbekova) Joelle Khater
Advocates Education Consortium AEX Law LLC Kalikova & Associates Badri and Salim El
Meouchi Law Firm
Dennis Mung'ata Remigeo P. Mugambi Fatmire Haliti Ainura Osmonalieva
Gichimu Mungata Muthoga Gaturu & Co. The Kosova Rehabilitation Legal Clinic Adilet Khatoun Haidar
Advocates Advocates Centre for Torture Victims Synergy-Takamol
Alexander Orehov
Donald W. Kaniaru Ronald Rogo Fisnik Salihu Mohamad Ziad
Kaniaru & Kaniaru University of Nairobi RPHS Law Firm Anastasia Volosatova Ramadan
Advocates Veritas Law Firm Elaref International Law
Sammy T. Nyambari Fjorda Vllasolli Avdiu Office
Edwin Ochieng' Otongo Productivity Management Kosovo Law Institute Azamat Kerimbaev
Mwagambo & Okonjo Insistute ABA Rule of Law Initiative Nada Hachem
Advocates Florentina Grubi-Vula Law Office Hachem
Samson Opundo Elida K. Nogoibaeva
Elizabeth Wangari Opundo & Associates Gjylbehare Bella Murati American University in Nadim Abboud
Odhiambo Advocates University Haxhi Zeka Central Asia Abboud and Associates
University of Nairobi Law Firm
Thomas N. Maosa Gjyljeta Mushkolaj Kerim Begaliev
Elly Nyaim Opot Maosa and Company University of Prishtina Centil Law Firm Pierre Obeid
University of Nairobi Advocates University of Balamand
Halim Bajraktari Magomed Saaduev
Ezra Makori Wilfred M. Ngugi University Ukshin Hoti Kalikova & Associates Rihab Aboul Hosn
Dentons Hamilton Chiuri Kirui & Rugo, Prizren
Harrison & Mathews Advocates Nurzhan Bostonova Roula Zayat
Hava Ismajli Sentil Law Firm The Arab Center for the
Fidelis Marabu Limo Wilson Mulei Marotse Development of the Rule
Limo & Njoroge Advocates Lepact LLP & Associates Klit Shala Saltanat Moldoisaeva of Law and Integrity
Fisnik Salihu & Partners Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic
Francis Gichuhi Kamau Anonymous University Salah Mattar
Contributors Kushtrim Shaipi Mattar Law Firm
Fred Ondieki Mogotu IQ Consulting Sanzhar Alashev
Anjarwalla & Khanna Kosovo GRATA International Sheryne Koteiche
Advocates Leutrim Syla Awada Tyan Law Firm
Adelina R. Hoxha Taalaibek Tursunovich
Gilda Odera Avokatura Mervete Shala Shamurzaev Anonymous
Federation of Kenya College Dukagjini-UBT Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic Contributors
Employers Adnan Bozalija University
University of Prishtina Muhamet Bytyqi Liberia
Harrison Mbori Assembly of the Republic Valentin Chernyshev
Strathmore University Ahmet Kasumi of Kosovo Kumtor Gold Company Alexandra Kormah Zoe
Law Offices of Zoe and
Hilda Njoroge Alban Krasniqi Qerim Qerimi Zhanyl Abdrakhmanova Partners
Limo & Njoroge Advocates University of Prishtina Centil Law Firm
Betty Lamin-Blamo
Lex Group Liberia, LLC

184
Fatu Maima Kamara
Foster
Hannan J. Bestman
SpaLife By Jenneh
Ivan F. Camanor
J. Awia Vankan
Heritage Partners &
Associates, Inc.
Jallah A. Barbu
Institute for Constitutional
Research, Policy &
Strategic Development
James C. R. Flomo
Public Defenders' Program
of Liberia
John Kamma
Citizens Bureau for
Development and
Productivity
Kanio Bai Gbala
University of Liberia
Lamii Kpargoi
The Justice Initiative
Lucia D. S. Gbala
Heritage Partners &
Associates, Inc.
Martha N. Zarway
Kingdom Care Medical
Foundation
Mohamed K. Mansalay
Plan International
Moses B. F. Massaquoi
Clinton Health Access
Initiative
Nelson S. Weh, Jr.
Citizens Bureau for
Development and
Productivity
Peter Hne Wilson
U.S. African Development
Foundation
Stephen J. C. S. Kai
Institute for Constitutional
Research, Policy &
Strategic Development;
Public Interest Law Office
Anonymous
Contributors
Madagascar
Alain Ramanarivo
Barreau de Madagascar
Alphonse Anatole
Andrianaivo Zo Anonymous R. Usha Devi Famoussa Keita
Rakotoarisoa Contributors R. Usha Devi & Associates Cabinet d'Avocats
Tribunal de Travail Famoussa Keita
d'Antananarivo Malawi S. B. Cheah
S. B. Cheah & Associates Fousseyni Dembele
Andry Herisoa Adamson Muula Centre Nationale d'Appui
Andrianasolo University of Malawi Saw Tiong Guan à la Lutte contre la
Institut International des University of Malaya Maladie
Sciences Sociales Anthony J. Malunga
For Generations Institute Sharon Kaur Harouna Diallo
Andry Randriaminosoa University of Malaya Université des Sciences
Barreau de Madagascar Bruno P. Matumbi Juridiques et Politiques de
Excellence Law Partners Sivalal Sadasivan Bamako
Aviva Ramanitra Monash University
Lexel Juridique et Fiscal Chikosa Mozesi Malaysia Issiaka Sanogo
Silungwe Barreau du Mali
Bakoly Rakotomalala Mizumali Foundation Sujata Balan
University of Malaya Kadidiatou Bouare
Chantal Razafinarivo Fresier Chidyaonga- Université de Droit
Barreau de Madagascar Maseko Wah-Yun Low Bamako-Mali
University of Malawi University of Malaya
Fahafahantsoa Karamoko Nimaga
Rapelanoro Rabenja George Naphambo Yusramizza Md Isa
Université d'Antananarivo Naphambo and Company Universiti Utara Malaysia Khadidjatou Toure
Santé et Développement
Jean Pierre Rakotovao Justin G. K. Dzonzi Zainal Amin Ayub
Jhpiego Kainja & Dzonzi Attorneys Universiti Utara Malaysia Lassana Diakite
at Law
Lala Ratsiharovala Anonymous Mamadou Ismaila
Ministère de la Justice Khumbo Bonzoe Soko Contributors Konate
Soko & Co. Jurifis Consult
Léonard Velozandry Mali
Barreau de Madagascar Marshal Chileng Mamadou Moustapha
T.F. and Partners Abdou Doumbia Sow
Nelly Rakotobe Ordre des Pharmaciens Cabinet d'Avocats Sow &
Ralambondrainy Patrick Mphatso Associes
Ministère de la Justice Chinguwo Abdoul Kader Siby
Université de Droit Moussa Oumar Sow
Njivasoa Nathalie Anonymous Bamako-Mali Wac Partners
Rambeloson Contributors
Barreau de Madagascar Abdoul Kassoum Maiga Omorou Toure
Malaysia Children's International Université des Sciences
Olivia Rajerison Summer Villages Juridiques et Politiques de
Cabinet Rajerison Ahmad Shamsul Abd Bamako
Aziz Abdoulaye Guimba
Rakotonomenjanahary Universiti Utara Malaysia Ouane Ousmane Sylla
Cabinet d'Avocats Wac Partners Ministère de la Sante et
Ashgar Ali Ali Mohamed des Affaires Sociales
Rija Ramarijaona International Islamic Abdoulaye Thera
Prime Lex University Malaysia Centre Social Samba Baba N'diaye
Barreau du Mali
Riki Rakotobe Chew Phye Keat Aboubacar Souleymane
Cabinet d'Avocat Associé Raja, Darryl & Loh Diarra Seydou Doumbia
Alex Rafamatanantsoa et Barreau du Mali Avocats Sans
Associé Donovan Cheah Frontieres-Mali; Barreau
Donovan & Ho Alhassane Soukouna du Mali
Rojo Randrianarivony Vaughan Avocats
Ralitera Harlida Abdul Wahab Zakaria Keita
Barreau de Madagascar Universiti Utara Malaysia Alioune Badara Diallo
Anonymous
Solo Ratrimoarivony Khadijah Mohamed Aly Soumountera Contributors
Barreau de Madagascar Universiti Utara Malaysia Wale Action Sante
Population Mauritania
Tino Harvel Mahadirin Hj Ahmad
Razafinimanana Universiti Malaysia Sabah Amadou Ongoiba Brahim Diarra
Toki Ramilison Mohd Munzil Muhamad Daouda Ba Cheikh Abdellahi
Multimedia University Vaughan Avocats Ahmed Babou
Tsarazara
Andrianasoavina Norhisham Abd Bahrin Deya Ahmed Bezeid
Azmi & Associates
WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 185
 El Moustapha Attighe
ONUSIDA
Hademine Saleck Ely
The Imams and Ulema
Coalition for the Rights of
Women and Children in
Mauritania
Jemal Mohamed El
Hady
CCM Mauritanie; Fonds
Mondial
Mohamed Ahmed
Oubid
Mohamed Dah
Abdelkader
Centre Mauritanien de
Recherche et d'Etudes
Juridiques, Economiques
et Sociales
Mohamed Ould Moctar
Mohamed Sid'Ahmed
Meinouh
Barreau de Mauritanie
Mohamed Sidi
Abderrahmane Brahim
Mouloud Mohamed
Reseau des PVVIH
Ould Abed Aily
Association Dévelomment
Communautaire et Santé
Saidou Ly
Cabinet Maitre LY Saidou
Zeinebou Taleb Moussa
Association
Mauritanienne pour la
Santé de la Mère et de
l'enfant
Anonymous
Contributors
Mauritius
Abdullah Yusuf Ali
Bauluck
Bibi Chambers
Bertrand Cheung
Brigitte Michel
Aides Infos Liberte Espoir
et Soldiarite
Cindy Trevedy
Fond Mondial Maurice
Daya Auckloo
Deepti Bismohun
ENSafrica
186
H. S. Bunjun Centro de Derechos José Antonio Montoya Sofia Alejandra Aguirre
Dabee & Bunjun Humanos Miguel Martínez Peña
Chambers Agustín Pro Juárez Centro Nacional de Moreno Rodriguez y Asoc.
Equidad de Género y Salud
Iqbal Rajahbalee Christian Alan Bello Reproductiva Victor Manuel Ortega
BLC Robert & Associates Melchor Gonzalez
Notarías Publicas 92 & Juan Carlos Tornel Machuaztic International
Javed Niamut 145 Baker McKenzie Trade S.A. de C.V.
BLC Robert & Associates
Christian Serna Juan Manuel Juarez Anonymous
Krishan M. Beeharry Serna Asociados Abogados Meza Contributors
Contramar Abogados
Mohamad Fawzi Cristina Sánchez Urtiz Moldova
Mahomoodally Miranda & Estavillo, S.C. Karen Lizbeth Franco
University of Mauritius Díaz Adrian Belîi
Daniel Cruz González Centro Nacional de Nicolae Testemitanu State
Mohammad Nawaz Universidad Nacional Equidad de Género y Salud University of Medicine and
Dookhee Autónoma de México Reproductiva Pharmacy
Ruwaydah Jaunbacus Diana Ivette Fuentes Luciano Mendoza Cruz Alexei Croitor
Uteem Chambers Ulloa Universidad Nacional
GR&ND Asociados Autónoma de México Ana Ciobanu
Sanjay Bhuckory University Clinic for
Bhuckory Chambers Enrique Camarena Luis Raymundo Lozano Primary Health Care
Domínguez Juárez
Yousuf Ali Azaree Maqueo Barnetche, Instituto Nacional de Baciu Inga
MC Law Offices Aguilar & Camarena Geriatría Universitatea de Stat
Alecu Russo Bălți
Yves Hein Franz E. Oberarzbacher Marco Antonio
Hein Chambers Centro de Innovación para González Reynoso Carmanschi Vitalie
el Acceso a la Justicia; GR&ND Asociados
Zareena Tawheen Instituto Tecnológico Corina Oprea
Choomka Autónomo de México Mario Alberto Rocha Efrim, Roşca şi Asociaţii
Mauritius Bar Council PricewaterhouseCoopers Law Firm
Gerardo Moheno
Anonymous Gallardo Mayra Quintero Cristina Copaceanu
Contributors Moreno Rodriguez y Asoc. Hewlett Packard Universitatea de Studii
Enterprise Politice Și Economice
Mexico Gilberto Miguel Valle Europene "Constantin
Zulbarán Miguel Aarón Moreno Stere"
Alejandra Moreno Basham Ringe y Correa, Jiménez
Altamirano S.C. Centro Nacional de Cuznetov Alexandru
Universidad Nacional Equidad de Género y Salud State University of
Autónoma de México Guillermo A. Gatt Reproductiva Moldova
Corona
Alfonso Rodriguez- Gatt Corona y Abogados Miguel Ángel Torres Ecaterina Nac and
Arana Asociados, S.C.; Hernández Roger Gladei
Legalmex, S.C. Universidad Jesuita de Maqueo Barnetche, Gladei & Partners
Guadalajara; Universidad Aguilar & Camarena
Anais Cortes Escamilla Panamericana Galina Obreja
Instituto Nacional de Mónica Jazmín Nicolae Testemitanu State
Salud Pública de México Guillermo Piecarchic Martínez Pérez University of Medicine and
PMC Group, S.C. Fundación Civitas, A.C. Pharmacy
Angel Delfino Gómez
Lizárraga Héctor Ávila Rosas Monica Schiaffino Ghenadie Țurcanu
Secretaría de Salud, Universidad Nacional Littler Mexico, S.C. Center for Health Policies
Ciudad de México Autónoma de México and Studies
Oliva López Arellano
Angelica Angeles- Héctor González Universidad Autónoma Ion Guzun
Llerenas Schmal Metropolitana-Xochimilco The Legal Resources
Instituto Nacional de Torres Morante Abogados Centre from Moldova
Salud Pública de México Pablo Nosti Herrera
Hugo Hernández-Ojeda Miranda & Estavillo, S.C. Iulia Furtuna
Carlos de Buen Unna Alvírez Turcan Cazac Law Firm
Bufete de Buen, S.C. Hogan Lovells Sergio López Moreno
Universidad Autónoma Lilia Carasciuc
Carolina Ramos Jose Alberto Campos Metropolitana-Xochimilco Transparency
Ballesteros Vargas International
Miranda & Estavillo, S.C. Sanchez Devanny, Silvano Cantu
Eseverri, S.C. Laboratorio de Innovación Liliana Domente
para la Paz
Mihail Durnescu Enkhtur Demberelsuren Lhassan M'Barki Gilda A. Jossias U Mya Thein
MahoneyLiotta LLP Center South for Associação Moçambicana U Mya Thein & Legal
Natalia Molosag Studies and Sustainable de Desenvolvimento Group
Union of Lawyers of the Gerelmaa Sandui Development Concertado
Republic of Moldova, Umug Kholch Partners Anonymous
Chisinau Bar LLP Mimoun Charqi Gimina Mahumana Contributors
Charqi Lex Consulting Langa
Nelea Prodan Indermohan S. Narula SAL & Caldeira Namibia
National Centre of Mohamed Baske Manar Advogados, Lda.
Pre-Hospital Emergency Khishigsaikhan Université Cadi Ayyad de Clement Daniels
Medical Assistance Batchuluun Marrakech Jennifer Gilda Arnaldo
Open Society Forum Fernanda Lopes Eliaser Nekwaya
Seghei Cozma Mohamed Nakhli Advogados & Associados
Serghei Cozma Law Firm Khunan Jargalsaikhan Université Cadi Ayyad de Floris Coetzee
Mongolian Bar Marrakech Joaquim Lourenco Uate Fisher, Quarmby & Pfeifer
Sergiu Ursu Association Associacao Ntumbuluku
Moldova State University Mohamed Salmi Nambili T. K. Shipena
Luke Lkhaasuren Justice et Spiritualité Luís Sáragga Leal Namibia Special Risks
Sonsa Boris Agaa & Partners LLP PLMJ Advogados, SP, RL Insurance Association
Mustapha Assouane Limited
Spinei Larisa Munkhdorj Badral Université Ibn Zohr Miguel Spínola
Nicolae Testemitanu State Mongol-Advocates LLP PLMJ Advogados, SP, RL Nawala Kamati
University of Medicine and Naouazili My Driss Engling, Stritter & Partners
Pharmacy Nomingerel Khuyg Neylla Gulamhussen
Nassri Ilham Norman Tjombe
Svetlana Doltu Solongoo Bayarsaikhan Ministère de la Santé Pedro Macaringue Tjombe-Elago
The Council for Avinex Partners LLP Pedro Macaringue & Incorporated
Preventing and Nesrine Roudane Advogados Associados
Eliminating Discrimination Zanaa Jurmed Roudane & Partners Law Petrine Mwadhina
and Ensuring Equality; The Firm Rafael Neves Banguine Hango
Council for the Prevention Anonymous SAL & Caldeira Dr. Weder, Kauta &
of Torture Contributors Omar Mahmoud Advogados, Lda. Hoveka Inc.
Bendjelloun
Vasile Gherasim Morocco Rafique de Toni Hancox
Popa & Associates Rachid Attahir Albuquerque Legal Assistance Centre
Abdelaziz Bakkali Université Hassan 1er Fernanda Lopes
Viorel Plopa Advogados & Associados Yvonne Dausab
A.O. Centrul Pentru Abdelghani Khannous Tarik Mossadek Law Reform and
Securitate Juridică a Center South for Université Hassan 1er Anonymous Development Commission
Informației Studies and Sustainable Contributors
Development Anonymous Anonymous
Viorel V. Berliba Contributors Myanmar Contributors
Berliba, Ungurean și Abdellah Bakkali
Partenerii Bakkali Law Firm Mozambique Alfred Boima Hill Nepal
International
Anonymous Ahmad Hussein Alexandre Chivale Development Law Aakriti Khanal
Contributors Cabinet HHH Avocats Alexandre Chivale & Organization Sinha Verma Law Concern
Associados
Mongolia Ali Badi Caitlin Reiger Ananta Raj Luitel
Association Nationale Almamater Tamele MyJustice Constitutional Lawyers'
Baasanjargal pour la Défense des Droits BTA Advogados, LDA. Forum; Supreme Court of
Khurelbaatar de l'Homme au Maroc Kari A. Rotkin Nepal
ELC Advocates LLP Belisário Tamele Justice Base
Ali Lachgar Essahili BTA Advogados, LDA. Apurba Khatiwada
Badamragchaa Ali Lachgar Essahili Law Lucy Wayne & Prudent Legal Services
Purevdorj Firm César Carlos Alberto Associates
Open Society Forum Francisco Vamos Ver Bijaya Kumar Basnet
Azzedine Kettani SAL & Caldeira Min Thein Heritage Law Firm
Bayar Budragchaa Hassan II University in Advogados, Lda. Rajha and Tann NK Legal
ELC Advocates LLP Casablanca; Kettani Law Bishnu Luitel
Firm Diana Paredes e Myat Ko BG Law Foundation
David C. Buxbaum Ramalho Justice Base
Anderson & Anderson LLP Elbachir Aaddi SAL & Caldeira Bishwa Nath Khanal
Université Ibn Zohr Advogados, Lda. Nickey Diamond Prithivi Legal Service
Dorjdamba Fortify Rights
Zumberellkham Hicham El Boukfaoui Dimétrio Raul Manjate Budhi Karki
Scott Ciment
Dugerjav D. Khachai Abdelmajid Faizal Jusob United Nations Daksha Bahadur
MDS & KhanLex LLP Couto, Graça & Development Programme Chhetri
Khayi Yousra Associados Neupane Law Associates

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 187

 Jyoti Poudel Tejman Shrestha Simon van der Sluijs Mark Winger Nicaragua
Jyoti Poudel and Tribhuvan University Van Diepen Van der Kroef Holmden Horrocks
Associates Advocaten Abraham A. Salinas
Tek Tamata Matt Berkahn University of South
Kalyan Pokhrel United Nations Steven Jellinghaus Massey University Florida; Universidad
F-Dimensional Legal Development Programme De Voort Advocaten| Nacional Autónoma de
Services and Research Mediators; Tilburg Nick Crang Nicaragua
Centre Pvt. Ltd. Upendra Raj Dulal University Duncan Cotterill
Sinha Verma Law Concern Angelica Maria Toruño
Maskey Mathura Kumar Thomas Timmermans Nigel Hampton Garcia
SBT Law Associates Anonymous Norton Rose Fulbright LLP Universidad Evangelica
Contributors Paul Michalik Nicaraguense Martin
Meen Poudyal Chhetri Anonymous Luther King Jr.
Nepal Center for Disaster Netherlands Contributors Paul Roth
Management University of Otago Avil Ramírez Mayorga
Arnold C. Hoegen New Zealand Central Law
Mukunda Prasad Dijkhof Peter G. Watts
Paudel Hoegen Dijkhof Dutch Alan Knowsley Bankside Chambers Carlos Alberto Herrera
National Law Chamber Business Lawyers Rainey Collins Lawyers Calero
Petra Butler
Nil Mani Upadhyay Arnold Versteeg Andrew Schulte Victoria University of Fernandolino Narvaez
National Medical College Macro & Versteeg Cavell Leitch Wellington Narvaez Mojica &
Advocaten Associates
Prabin Subedi Austin Forbes Samantha Turner
Paramount Legal Advisory Barbalique Peters Clarendon Chambers Simpson Grierson Gerardo Martin
Services Pvt. Ltd. Hernandez
Eugenie Nunes Bennet Castelino Scott Wilson Consortium Abogados
Prashanna Shrestha Dentons Castlefinn Law Duncan Cotterill
Pradhan & Associates Gerardo Melecio
Gabriel Meijers Brenda Midson Simon George Gyenge Escorcia Diaz
Rabin Subedi Meijers Canatan University of Waikato Lyon O'Neale Arnold Bufete Garcia & Bodan
National Law College Advocaten Lawyers
Campbell Roberts Gustavo Antonio Lopez
Rudra Sharma Hansko Broeksteeg The Salvation Army Sonja M. Cooper Arguello
Transnational Law House Radboud Universiteit Cooper Legal Lopez Arguello &
Charl Hirschfeld Associates
Rukamanee Maharjan Henk Snijders Ranfurly Chambers Stephen Eliot Smith
Tribhuvan University University of Leiden University of Otago Hugo José Arauz
Colin Henry Sampson
Sambidha Sharma Jaap-Willem Stephen Franks
Pradhan & Associates Roozemond D. J. Lyon Franks Ogilvie Ivania Lucía Paguaga
Roozemond [+] De Haan Lyon O'Neale Arnold Cuadra
Sangha Ratna Advocaten Lawyers Steven Zindel Arias Law
Bajracharya Zindels
Tribhuvan University Jacqueline van den Elcel Nerida Jairo Vanegas López
Bosch Amicus Law Sylvia Bell Universidad de Santiago
Satish Adhikari IVY Advocaten Centre for Human Rights de Chile
Perennial Legal Services Frances Joychild Law, Policy and Practice
Jolanda Meeuwissen Leonardo Maldonado
Shital Subedi Netherlands Institute Francisc Catalin Deliu Trevor Daya- González
of Mental Health and Gay Morgan Winterbottom Arias Law
Shiva Prasad Rijal Addiction (Trimbos University of Waikato University of Waikato
Pioneer Law Associates Institute) Marcia Ibarra Herrera
Gordon Anderson W. John Hopkins Universidad Nacional
Shringa Rishi Kafle Joost Italianer Victoria University of University of Canterbury Autónoma de
Merit Legal Consultancy NautaDutilh Wellington Nicaragua, Managua
Pvt. Ltd. Warren Brookbanks
Joseph J. van Dort Grace Haden Auckland University of Roderick Salinas
Shyam Kumar Khatri Van Dort Advocatuur Transparency New Technology Arguello
Kathmandu Legals Zealand Ltd. Salinas y Asociados
Léon Graal William Akel
Subarna K. Khatry Sarfaty Advocaten Ian Miller Sangro Chambers Roy Marcel Rivera
Nepal Nutrition Pastora
Intervention Project N. P. Scholte Kate Diesfeld Anonymous Francisco Ortega &
Advocatenkantoor Scholte Auckland University of Contributors Asociados
Sudeep Gautam Technology
Reinier W. L. Russell Soraya Montoya
Sushila Subedi Russell Advocaten Malcolm Rabson Herrera
PSM Global Consultants Central Law
P. Ltd. Marie Bismark
University of Melbourne

188
Uriel E. Balladares Hamadou Zada Adamu M. Usman Ibrahim Imam Shedrack Ekpa
Abaunza Harouna F. O. Akinrele & Co. Kogi State University
Arias Law Barreau du Niger Israel O. Akanmidu
Adewale Akande Israel Akanmidu & Soji Awogbade
V. Mendez Hamani Oumarou Auxilium Attorneys Associates LP ǼLEX
Nicaragua Public Health Université Abdou
Association Moumouni de Niamey Aina Precious Aderemi John Dare Oloyede Sonnie Ekwowusi
Babalakin and Co. J.D. Oloyede's Law Sonnie Ekwowusi & Co.
Yaser Gabriel Bonilla Idrissa Tchernaka Chambers
Central Law; Molina & LBTI & Partners Ayo Olanrewaju Terrumun Z. Swende
Asoc. Ayo Olanrewaju & Co.; Jonathan Chi Daboer Benue State University
Mahamadou Rabiou Nigerian Law Publications University of Jos
Anonymous Souley Dagouma Uju Obuka
Contributor SCPA JUSTICIA Babajide O. Ogundipe Joseph E. O. Abugu University of Nigeria,
Sofunde Osakwe Abugu & Co. Nsukka
Niger Mahamane Laouali Ogundipe & Belgore
Manzo Kemi Oluwagbemiro Wahab Egbewole
Abdoul-Aziz Mamadou Ministère de la Santé Bolanle Jibogun F. O. Akinrele & Co. University of Ilorin
Maiga Publique Legal Aid Council of
Université Joseph Nigeria Laura Omolola Yomi Alliyu San
Ki-Zerbo Moumouni Fatoumata Ikwuagwu Chief Yomi Alliyu & Co.
Syndicat Autonome des Chiamaka I. Orabueze George Ikoli & Okagbue
Aboubacar Souley Magistrats du Niger University of Nigeria, Yomi Dare
CRAMS_EXA Nsukka Meg Mezie-Okoye Checkers Consultancy
Nassirou Lawali Madonna University, Services
Adamou Rabani Chinyere Nwokoro- Elele Campus
Observatoire Sahelo Nouhou Mahamadou Ndimele Anonymous
Saharien de Stratégie et Arzika Legal Luminaries Solicitors Michael C. Asuzu Contributors
Géopolitique Mouvement pour la University of Ibadan
Promotion de la Chioma Kanu Agomo North Macedonia
Aichatou Garba Citoyenneté Responsablre University of Lagos Obiajulu Nnamuchi
Mahamane University of Nigeria, Aleksandar Ickovski
Barreau du Niger Oumarou Mahaman Chisom Ndubuisi Nsukka
Rabiou Udo Udoma & Belo- Aleksandra Gruevska
Ali Idrissa Osagie Oghogho Makinde Drakulevski
Le Réseau des Rakia Boubakar Aluko & Oyebode Ss. Cyril and Methodius
Organisations pour la Centre de Recherche Christine Ike University
Transparence et l'Analyse Médicale et Sanitaire; University of Nigeria, Olaniyi Felix Olayinka
Budgétaire Ministère de la Santé Nsukka Niyi Olayinka & Co. Aneta Jovanoska
Publique Trajanovska, Biljana
Amadou Djibo Gazibo Damian Njoku-Umeh Olusoji Elias Mladenovska, Irena
Sarah Burgess Umuenyi Law Chambers Mitkovska, and Zlatko
Amadou Imerane Maiga Camber Collective Oluwadamilare Antevski
L'Ecole de la Protection Edwin Obimma Ezike Yomi-Alliyu Lawyers Antevski
Civile de Niamey; Thomas Kelley University of Nigeria, Chief Yomi Alliyu & Co.
L'Universite de Niamey; University of North Nsukka Biljana Panova
Université Jean Moulin Carolina Oluwafunke Adeoye Law Office Panova
Lyon 3 Efena Efetie Hope Behind Bars Africa
Wassiri Ibrahim Sidi National Hospital, Abuja
Bachir Talfi Idrissa Chaffa Omobola Bakare Darko Spasevski
Université Abdou Emmanuel Onyedi F. O. Akinrele & Co. Ss. Cyril and Methodius
Moumouni de Niamey Yacouba Mahaman Wingate University
Nabara West African Ventures Onjefu Adoga
Bara Ibrah Barreau du Niger Limited Brooke Chambers Law Deljo Kadiev
Inspection de la Firm Kadiev Law Office
Gouvernance Anonymous Enoch Mozong Azariah
Administrative Contributors Legal Aid Council of Ozofu 'Latunde Doncho Donev
Nigeria Ogiemudia Ss. Cyril and Methodius
Barry Bibata Gnandou Nigeria Udo Udoma & University
LBTI & Partners Festus O. Ukwueze Belo-Osagie
Abdulfattah Adewale University of Nigeria, Dori Kimova
Boubacar Oumarou Bakre Nsukka Peter K. Fogam Kimova Law Office
SCPA BNI Legal Aid Council of University of Lagos
Nigeria Gbenga Odusola Dragan Lazarov
Daouda Samna Acme Law Partners Pontian N. Okoli Law Office Lazarov
Conférence des Barreaux Abdulhamid Abdullahi University of Stirling
Ohada Bagara Gbenga Oyebode Emil Miftari
Community Health and Aluko & Oyebode Samuel O. Adesola
Effred Mouloul Research Initiative Nnenna Ejekam Filip Nacevski
Cabinet d'Avocat Boudal Godwin Etim Associates Law Firm Donevski
ǼLEX

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 189

 Leonid Trpenoski Niels R. Kiær Mohammad Hassan Arif Carlos Ernesto Alicia Jimenez Llerena
Trpenoski Law Firm Rime Advokatfirma DA Liaquat Merchant Gonzalez Ramirez Gonzalez Hunt Abogados
Associates Morgan & Morgan Laboralistas - Littler
Ljupka Noveska Olav Molven
Andonova VID Specialized University Muhammad Nouman Carlos Sucre Levy Antonio David Bardales
Shams Sucre, Arias & Reyes Pereira
Maja Risteska Ole Kristian Fauchald Qazi Law Associates
National Insurance Group University of Oslo Cristina De Roux and Armando Ramiro
AD Insurance Policy Muzaffar Islam Eduardo Ferrer Natividad Maguiña
Skopje Ørnulf Øyen Legis Inn, Attorneys & Morgan & Morgan Estudio Ghersi Abogados
University of Bergen Corporate Consultants
Martin Monevski Daniel R. Pichel Arturo Gárate Salazar
Monevski Law Firm Paul Saele Naila Baig-Ansari Universidad de Panamá Unversidad Nacional
Dental Competance Global Health Directorate Federico Villarreal
Neda Milevska Kostova Center - Indus Health Network Dora Estripeaut
Studiorum Hospital del Niño Doctor Carlos Palacios
Stella Tuft Neha Mankani José Renán Esquivel Universidad Nacional de
Nikolcho Lazarov Microsoft Global Health Directorate San Agustín de Arequipa
Law Office Lazarov - Indus Health Network Ernesto Shirley Perú
Tor Vale Shirley & Asociados
Olivera Docevska Qazi Shams ul Haq César Puntriano
Justicia Association Ulf Stridbeck Qazi Law Associates Jorge Isaac Ortega Universidad ESAN
University of Oslo
Sonja Stojcevska Saira Khowaja Jorge Molina Mendoza Christian Valencia
Cakmakova Advocates Werner Christie Interactive Research and Fabrega Molino Sarmiento
World Health Connections Development Estudio Ghersi Abogados
Svetlana Necheva Ltd. Juan Pablo Fábrega
Law Office Pepeljugoski Shahid Anwar Bajwa Polleri Danilo Sanchez Coronel
Skopje Anonymous Shahid Anwar Bajwa & Co. Fabrega Molino Universidad Norbert
Contributors Wiener
Svetlana Veljanovska Shams ul Haque Joiya Julia Sáenz
St. Clement of Ohrid Pakistan Right Law Company Sistema Nacional de Dennis Oswaldo
University of Bitola Investigadores; Secretaría Vilchez Ramírez
Aiman Tariq Tariq Rahim Nacional de Ciencia, Estudio Ghersi Abogados
Vojdan Monevski Jinnah Post Graduate Tariq Rahim Law Tecnología e Innovacíon
Monevski Law Firm Medical Center Associates Eduardo Herrera
María Eugenia Brenes Velarde
Anonymous Benazir Jatoi Umer Farooq Morgan & Morgan
Contributors Ayub Medical College German Jimenez Borra
Faiza Muzaffar Mario Adolfo Rognoni Estudio Muñiz
Norway Legis Inn, Attorneys & Anonymous Arosemena Noriega &
Corporate Consultants Contributors Contreras Gonzalo Garcia
Bent Endresen Calderon
EBT AS Firasat Rizwana Panama Mayte Sánchez G.
Siddiqui Morgan & Morgan Javier Castro Salinas
Carl Arthur Christiansen Adán Arnulfo Arjona L. Baker McKenzie; Estudio
Advokatfirmaet Ræder AS Hasan Hameed Bhatti Galindo, Arias & Lopez Milagros Caballero V. Echecopar
Lahore Waste Morgan & Morgan
Frank S. Thrana Management Company Alcides Gabriel Castillo Javier Lizarraga
Public Health Med-Base Rivera Natalia Vega Universidad Nacional San
Khalid A. Rehman Acabogadopty University of South Florida Agustín
Geir Steinberg Surridge and Beecheno
Advokatfirmaet Haavind Advocates and Corporate Alfonso Raúl Pineda Rafael Rodrigo José Luis Velarde
AS Consultant Camaño Rodriguez Barrios Lazarte
Lex Labour Panama Facto Litigios &
Harald B. Ciarlo M. Akram Sheikh Armando Barba Compliance
Akram Sheikh Law Ministerio de Salud Sebastián Rodríguez
Henrik Bjørnebye Associates Robles Julio Arbizu González
University of Oslo Campo Elías Muñoz Rodríguez - Robles & Estudio Arbizu & Gamarra
Maliha Zia Arango Asociados Abogados
Inge Lorange Backer Legal Aid Society Universidad de Panamá
University of Oslo Yariela Gonzalez Ortega Luciano López Flores
Mehek Ali Carlos A. Arrue Universidad de Panamá Estudio Luciano López
Karl Harald Søvig Global Health Directorate Montenegro Flores & Abogados
University of Bergen - Indus Health Network Anonymous
Carlos Barsallo Contributors Manuel Bermúdez Tapia
Magne Strandberg Mohammad Akmal Transparency Universidad Nacional
University of Bergen Wasim International Peru Mayor de San Marcos
Dadabhoy Institute
Morten Grandal of Higher Education; Alberto Varillas
The Consumer Authority Supreme Court of Pakistan García Sayán Abogados

190
Manuel Villa-García Jesusito G. Morallos Joanna Kosińska- Felipe Baião do Pedro Miguel Branco
Noriega Follosco Morallos & Herce Wiercińska Nascimento Escritório de Advocacia
Estudio Olaechea Kancelaria Adwokacka Maricato, Lima & Pedro Miguel Branco
Jonathan Sale Adwokat Associados - Sociedade de
Marcos Ricardo Revatta ILPC Advogados Pedro Rodrigues da
Salas Justyna Bartnik Mata
Universidad Nacional San Jose Cochingyan III Adam Morawski & Fernando Alves Correia PRM & Associados
Luis Gonzaga de Ica Cochingyan & Partners Partners Law Firm Universidade de Coimbra
Rui Costa Pereira
Maria del Pilar Pozo Karen S. Gomez Dumpit Krzysztof Kaleta Francisco Marques Bom PLMJ Advogados, SP, RL
Garcia Commission on Human University of Warsaw Marques Bom &
Hospital Central Fuerza Rights of the Philippines Associados Rui Tavares Correia
Aerea del Peru Krzysztof Kowalczyk Abreu & Marques
Leland R. Villadolid Jr. BSJP Law Firm Francisco Marques
Mario Castillo Freyre Angara Abello Concepcion Vieira Sandrine Bisson
Estudio Mario Castillo Regala & Cruz Law Offices Małgorzata Grzelak Carlos Pinto de Abreu e Marvão
Freyre Squire Patton Boggs Associados, Sociedade de
Ma. Louisa M. Advogados, SP, RL Sofia Martins dos
Oscar Cubas Barrueto Viloria-Yap Olga Sitarz Santos
Universidad Nacional University of Silesia Francisco Morais Carlos Pinto de Abreu e
Mayor de San Marcos Miguel B. Liceralde Coelho Associados, Sociedade de
ALGA Law Paweł Waszkiewicz Carlos Pinto de Abreu e Advogados, SP, RL
Rafael Sapler Zaidman University of Warsaw Associados, Sociedade de
Estudio Ghersi Abogados Nancy Joan Javier Advogados, SP, RL Sofia Monge
Javier Law Piotr Kuzniak Carlos Pinto de Abreu e
Raul Alberto Tolmos Kancelaria Radcy Gonçalo Gil Barreiros Associados, Sociedade de
Saponara Ramil E. Bugayong Prawnego Piotr Kuzniak PRA - Raposo, Sá Miranda Advogados, SP, RL
PJS Law & Associados, Sociedade
Rossana Maccera Wojciech Babicki de Advogados, SP, RL Spencer Dohner
Reginald A. Tongol Miller Canfield, W. Spencer Dohner, Catia
Silvia Rebaza Santa Tongol Joven and Babicki, A. Chelchowski Gonçalo Tavares Gomes Martins & Vanda Matos
Cruz Associates Law & and Partners Ferreira Leite, Rua, Pontes Lawyers
Estudio Gonzales Hunt Communications & Associados
Wojciech Klicki Teresa Violante
Sofía S. Sánchez Rhea Berba-Quimson Fundacja Panoptykon Inês Reis Erlangen-Nürnberg
Boluarte Hewlett Packard PBBR Universität
Instituto Nacional de Enterprise Anonymous
Ciencias Neurológicas Contributors Joana Barrilaro Ruas Vânia Costa Ramos
Ronahlee A. Asuncion Ferreira da Conceição, Carlos Pinto de Abreu e
Susana Astorga Macedo University of the Portugal Menezes & Associados Associados, Sociedade de
Estudio Villegas Philippines Diliman Advogados, SP, RL
Ana Pires Joao Tavares Ribeiro
Anonymous Roy Enrico C. Santos Universidade Atlântica JTR Advogado Anonymous
Contributors PJS Law Contributors
Ana Rita Gil Luís Brito Correia
Philippines Anonymous Universidade Nova de Republic of Korea
Contributors Lisboa Luis Miguel Amaral
Carmelita Gopez Nuqui Luis Miguel Amaral - Chang Woo Lee
Development Action for Poland António Casa Nova Advogados / Lawyers Donghwa Labor
Women Network Escola Superior de Saúde Consulting Corporation
Adam Morawski de Portalegre Maria do Rosário Anjos
Cesar Villanueva Adam Morawski & Anjos, Martins & Domyung Paek
Villanueva Gabionza Dy Partners Law Firm António Vaz de Castro Associados Seoul National University
Law Firm Universidade de Coimbra
Agnieszka Helsztyńska Maria Inês Gameiro Haksoo Ko
Emerico O. De Guzman Kancelaria Adwokacka Carlos Lopes Ribeiro NOVA University of Lisbon Seoul National University
ACCRALAW Adwokat Camargo & Radziminski
Advogados Associados Maria João Mimoso Hwang Lee
Enriquito J. Mendoza Andrzej Brodziak Nenhuma Korea University
Romulo Mabanta University of Applied Carlos Pinto de Abreu
Buenaventura Sayoc & de Sciences Carlos Pinto de Abreu e Miguel Andrade Jaehyuk Ahn
los Angeles Associados, Sociedade de Kim & Chang
Bartosz Kucharski Advogados, SP, RL P. Saragoça da Matta
Francis Tom Temprosa Bartosz Kucharski Sociedade de Advogados Jaeseop Song
Ateneo de Manila Advocate Chamber Carolina Boullosa Saragoça da Matta e Shin & Kim
University Gonzalez Silveiro de Barros
Jaroslaw Gwizdak Bind Sociedade de Junsok Yang
Jelson Garcia Institute for Law and Advogados Paulo de Sá e Cunha The Catholic University of
Commons Analytics and Society Cuatrecasas Korea
Strategies Eduardo Buisson
Loureiro

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 191

 Moon-hyuck Ho Dragoș Daghie
Seoul National University Daghie & Asociații Law
Firm; Universitatea
Sangbong Lee Dunărea de Jos Galați
DR & AJU International
Law LLC Dunea Mihai
Alexandru Ioan Cuza
Sung Kyu (Scott) Lee University of Iași
Kim & Chang
Eugen Octavian Chivu
Young Hun Yoon SCP Doru Traila si Asociatii
Hewlett Packard Korea
Ltd. Florentin Timoianu
Rubin Meyer Doru &
Young Shim Trandafir LPC
Yonsei University
Florina Firaru
Anonymous PETOŠEVIĆ
Contributors
George Nedelcu
Romania
Gheorghe Piperea
Alexandru Athanasiu Bucharest University;
University of Bucharest Piperea si Asociatii Law
Firm
Alina Daniela Nestor
Bar of Suceava Iulian Alexander Stoia
Bucharest Bar
Andrei Danciu
SCA Cataniciu & Asociatii Larion Alina-Paula
Ștefan cel Mare University
Andrei Mircea of Suceava
Zamfirescu
Gilescu, Valeanu, Lazăr Ioan
Nathanzon & Partners 1 Decembrie 1918
University; Baroul Alba
Aura Campranu
PETOŠEVIĆ Marius Balan
Alexandru Ioan Cuza
Bogdan C. Stoica University of Iași
Popovici Nitu Stoica &
Asociatii Mihai Carabas
Carabas, Lungu - Societate
Bulai Nicolae-Bogdan Civila de Avocati
University of Bucharest
Mihail Romeo Nicolescu
Cezara Batranu Ciuca Romeo Nicolescu Law
Cab. av. Cezara Batranu Office
Ciuca
Mihnea Stoica
Ciuca Aurora SCA Mihnea Stoica &
Ștefan cel Mare University Asociatii
of Suceava
Miloiu Ciprian
Cosmin Flavius Costaș AuxMundus Law
Costaș, Negru &
Asociații - Lawyers' Civil Nicolae-Horia Tit
Partnership Alexandru Ioan Cuza
University of Iași
Cristian Vladescu
National School of Public Ovidiu Podaru
Health, Management and Babes-Bolyai University
Professional Development
Ploesteanu Nicolae
Dan Oancea Dragos
University of Bucharest Universitatea de
Medicină, Farmacie,
Diana Botau Științe și Tehnologie din
Babes-Bolyai University Tîrgu Mureș
192
Radu Rizoiu Maria Erokhova Habimana Pie
Bucharest University Moscow Higher School Amilex Chambers
of Social & Economic
Raul Miron Sciences Jean Claude Twayigize
Universitatea de Rwanda Bar Association
Medicină, Farmacie, Maria Voskobitova
Științe și Tehnologie din ABA Rule of Law Initiative Jean Pierre Nkurunziza
Tîrgu Mureș B&A Advocates
Nikolai Kostenko
Septimiu Panainte Moscow Helsinki Group Kayijuka Ngabo
Alexandru Ioan Cuza Nexus Attorneys
University of Iași Pavel Alexandrovich
Kabanov Mugemangango Paul
Sergiu Bogdan Kazan Innovative PMM Advocate and
Sergiu Bogdan & Asociatii University Consultant Limited
Sergiu Golub Sergei L. Lazarev Mukoka Ronald Wallter
UBB Cluj-Napoca Russin & Vecchi MK Associated Advocates
Silvia Gabriela Scintee Sergei Murzakokv Uwimabera Bata
National School of Public HSE - Nizhny Novhorod Rwanda Bar Association
Health, Management and
Professional Development Sergey Avrusin Vedaste Mugemanyi
Saint-Petersburg State Oasis Law Chambers
Valerius M. Ciuca Pediatric Medical
Alexandru Ioan Cuza University Yamfashije Jeannine
University of Iași UCLouvain Saint-Louis
Sergey Bogatyrev
Veronica Dobozi Beiten Burkhardt Anonymous
SCA Stoica & Asociatii Contributors
Sergey Stepanov
Veronica Voinescu The Institute of Private Senegal
Voinescu & Partner Law
Adrien Dioh
Vlad Neacsu Svetlana Igorevna Université Gaston Berger
Popovici Nitu Stoica & Dobrovolskaya
Asociatii Moscow Regional Bar Amadou Drame
Association Société de Developpement
Anonymous et des Fibres Textiles
Contributors Viktor Pomelov
Russin & Vecchi Amadou Yakhya Fall
Russian Federation Lexisen Avocats
Vilena Voronich
Andrey Demin Russin & Vecchi Ameth Ba
Russian Public Health SCP Ba & Tandian
Association Vyacheslav Chasnyk
Saint-Petersburg State Pe- Balla Sy
Dmitry Garifulin diatric Medical University Sonatel
Corporations and
Shareholders Project Anonymous Boubacar Diakite
Contributors Geni & Kebe
Eduard Margulyan
Rwanda Cheikh Ahmadou
Elena Sergeevna Petri Ndiaye
Arabis Group Albert Nkundabatware M. Barreau du Sénégal
Ebenezer Law Firm Ltd.;
Elena Sinelnikova Rwanda Bar Association Cheikh Fall Cabinet
Saint-Petersburg State d'Avocats
Pediatric Medical Arsène Rutiyomba
University Clément Diarga Basse
Christine Habyarimana
Gleb Glinka HC General Legal Services El Hadji Oumar Sane
Glinka, Rubnstein & Ltd District Sanitaire de
Partners Bignona
Counsel Herbert Zziwa
Mari Davitovna Lavoix Advocates Gabriel Massène
Davtyan Senghor
Consortium of Women's Edgar Ankunda District Sanitaire
NGOs Lavoix Advocates d'Oussouye
Laura Petiot Jane Paunkovic Nemata Majeks-Walker Iris Pensa Hugh Corder
L.P-Consulting Megatrend University The 50/50 Group of Sierra Jadek & Pensa Law Office University of Cape Town
Leone
Mansour Gningue Jovana Tomić Jorg Sladič Jacques Matthee
Geni & Kebe Caković Tomić Law Office Patrick Ngenda Nova Univerza University of the Free
Johnbull State
Meissa Toure Miljkan Karličić Centre for Access to Ljuba Zupančič Čokert
Euromed Universite Advokatska Kancelarija Justice Peace and Human Miro Senica and Jacques van Wyk
Karličić Rights Attorneys, Ltd. Werksmans Attorneys
Mohamadou Boye
Université Gaston Berger Nebojsa Stankovic Regena Juliana Kain Luka Ticar Joey Berning
Stankovic & Partners Law BRAC International University of Ljubljana University of South Africa
Ndeye Khoudia Office
Tounkara Ronald Gidwani Matija Repolusk Johann Kriegler
SCPA Mayacine Tounkara Ognjen Djuric Halloway & Partners Freedom Under Law
et Associes Nina Persak
Petar Bulat Vandi Tamba Sombie University of Ljubljana Lesiba Lolly Motsepe
Ndiaye Semou University of Belgrade Bo Children's Hospital University of South Africa
Uinversité Cheikh Anta Peter Fašun
DIOP de Dakar Petar Stojanovic Yembeh Marah Fašun, Melihen, Milač, Lukas Muntingh
Joksovic, Stojanovic & Catholic Relief Services Strojan University of the Western
Ndiouma Ndour Partners Cape
Université Assane Seck de Anonymous Peter Stanovnik
Ziguinchor Simonida Contributors Institute for Economic Martin Brassey
Sladojevic-Stanimirovic Research
Paul Babacar Faye Singapore Martin van Staden
SCP Sow-Seck-Diagne & Vladimir Hrle Primož Rožman Free Market Foundation
Associes Hrle Attorneys Benjamin Joshua Ong Zavod RS za Transfuzijsko
Singapore Management Medicino Mbuzeni Johnson
Rahimine Azimari Toure Zoran Radovic University Mathenjwa
Geni & Kebe Radovic & Ratkovic Sara Ahlin Doljak University of South Africa
Attorneys Chia Boon Teck
Samba Cor Sarr Chia Wong LLP Tajka Golob Obrenović Mildred Bekink
Ministère de la Sante et de Anonymous Gross & Golob University of South Africa
l'Action Social Contributors Chia Ti Lik
Chia Ngee Thuang & Co. Tine Mišic Nisha Jacob
Serigne Niang Sierra Leone ODI Law Firm University of Cape Town
Dan W. Puchniak
Seyni Gueye Ady Macauley National University of Tjasa Drgan Ntombifikile Mtshali
Cabinet d'Avocats Houda B & J Partners Singapore Law Office Drnovsek University of
KwaZulu-Natal
Anonymous Alphonsus B. M. Gbanie Eric Tin Keng Seng Uroš Čop
Contributors Human Rights Defenders Donaldson & Burkinshaw Miro Senica and P. J. Schwikkard
Network LLP Attorneys, Ltd. University of Cape Town
Serbia
Augustine Sorie-Sengbe Scott G. Wheeler Anonymous Peter Jordi
Ana Popovic Marrah Contributors Wits Law Clinic
Zivkovic Samardzic Law KMK Solicitors Simon Chesterman
Office National University of South Africa Pieter du Toit
Editayo Pabs-Garnon Singapore North-West University
Danijela Korać-Mandić Lambert & Partners Altair Richards
Novi Sad Humanitarian Suet-Fern Lee ENSafrica Richard Haslop
Centre Fatmata Sorie Morgan Lewis & Bockius Woodhead Bigby Inc.
Legal Access through B. N. Harris
Dragan Psodorov Women Yearning for Thio Li-ann University of Pretoria Riette du Plessis
Joksovic, Stojanovic & Equality Rights and Social National University of University of the
Partners Justice Singapore C. I. Tshoose Witwatersrand
University of South Africa
Dušan M. Stojković Isaac David Babatunde Anonymous S. S. Terblanche
Law Office Stojković John Contributors Dejo Olowu University of South Africa
Legal Access through Walter Sisulu University
Filip Milošević Women Yearning for Slovenia Shrikant Peters
Law Office Milošević Equality Rights and Social Derek Hellenberg University of the Western
Justice; Sorie and Bangura Anton Gradišek University of Cape Town Cape
Goran Vucic Dagra D.O.O.
Joksovic, Stojanovic & Ishmael Philip Mammie F. Venter Stephan du Plessis
Partners Fornah-Sesay, Cummings, Borut Bernik Bogataj North-West University Webbers Attorneys
Showers & Co.
Ivan Kovacevic Grega Strban Funmi Abioye Victoria Bronstein
Lalin Law Office University of Ljubljana University of South Africa University of the
Witwatersrand

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 193

 Wayne Mentz Eduardo Santamaría José Luis de Peray Manuel Ángel De las Oscar Morales García
North-West University Moral Heras García Uría Menéndez
J&A Garrigues SLP José Luis Goñi Sein Universidad de Alicante
Werner van Straaten Universidad Pública de Pablo López Ferrer
University of Pretoria Elena Espinosa Navarra Manuel Cachón Uría Menéndez
Cadenas
Yousuf A. Vawda Elena Sánchez Jordán José Manuel Mateo Universidad Autónoma de Patricia Barber
University of KwaZulu- Universidad de La Laguna Sierra Barcelona Universidad de Las Palmas
Natal J&A Garrigues SLP de Gran Canaria
Emilio Díaz Ruiz Margarita Isabel Ramos
Anonymous José María Labeaga Quintana Rafael Ortiz Cervello
Contributors Enric Fossas Espadaler Azcona Universidad de La Laguna Garrigues Abogados
Universidad Autónoma de Universidad Nacional de
Spain Barcelona Educación a Distancia Margit Gaffal Raquel Flórez Escobar
Complutense University Freshfields
Alba García Torres Federico Andrés José R. Repullo Madrid
Universidad Complutense Rodriguez Morata Escuela Nacional de Rebeca Benarroch
de Madrid Universidad de Castilla-La Sanidad María Acale Sánchez Benarroch
Mancha Universidad de Cádiz Ciudad de Ceuta
Alberto Blasco José Vte. Martí Boscà
Hernando Federico Durán López Sociedad Española de María Barberá Riera Remedios Aranda
J&A Garrigues SLP Universidad de Córdoba Sanidad Ambiental Sociedad Española de Rodríguez
Sanidad Ambiental Universidad Carlos III de
Alfonso Pedrajas Federico Navarro Nieto Juan Alberto Díaz Madrid
Abdón Pedrajas Abogados Universidad de Córdoba López María del Rosario
J. A. Díaz Litigación Penal Gómez López Remedios Menéndez
Almudena Álvarez Fernando Alberich Universidad de Cádiz Calvo
Álvarez Lentner Arjona Juan Antonio Lascuraín Universidad de Alcalá
Rambla Abogados & Baker McKenzie; María Isabel Álvarez
Amparo Garrigues Asesores Universidad Autónoma de Vega Ricard Meneu
Gimenez Madrid Universidad de Oviedo Fundación Instituto de
Universidad Jaume I de Francisco Ramos Investigación en Servicios
Castellón Romeu Juan Francisco Aguiar María José Benítez de Salud
Universidad Autónoma de Rodriguez Jiménez
Andrea Macía Morillo Barcelona Servicio Canario de Salud, Universidad de Málaga Roberto Mazorriaga Las
Universidad Autónoma de Gobierno de Canarias Hayas
Madrid Ildefonso Hernández Maria Ludivina Rambla Abogados &
Aguado Juan Luis Beltrán Valvidares Suarez Asesores
Antonio Pedrajas Quiles Universidad Miguel Aguirre Universidad de Oviedo
Abdón Pedrajas Abogados Hernández Universidad Pública de Rocio Bonet
Navarra Maria Luisa de la Flor Hewlett Packard
Araceli Pelaez Iñigo Sagardoy de Fernández Enterprise
Rodriguez Simón Juan Luis Moreno Universidad de Cádiz
De Castro Gabinete Sagardoy Abogados Hewlett Packard Román Gil
Juridico Enterprise María Pilar Marco Alburquerque
Jacobo Dopico Francia Sagardoy Abogados
Benito Alaez Corral Gómez-Aller Juan M. Terradillos Universidad de
Universidad de Oviedo Universidad Carlos III de Universidad de Cádiz Castilla-La Mancha Rosa M. Satorras
Madrid Fioretti
Bernardo del Rosal Juan Manuel López Ulla Marina Lorente Universidad de Barcelona
Del Rosal & Adame Jaime Flores Perez- Universidad de Cádiz J&A Garrigues SLP
Abogados; Universidad de Durias Rosa María Urbanos
Alicante J&A Garrigues SLP Juan Oliva Moreno Mario Maraver Gómez Garrido
Universidad de Castilla-La Universidad Autónoma de Universidad Complutense
Carla Sanahuja and Jaime Hernández Mancha Madrid de Madrid
Daniel Marín Cuatrecasas
Gomez-Acebo & Pombo Juan Pedro Cortés Martín Godino Rosario Vicente
Javier Melero Labadía Sagardoy Abogados Martínez
Carlos Campillo-Artero Melero & Gené Advocats Baker McKenzie Universidad de Castilla-La
Servicio de Salud Islas Miguel Ángel Presno Mancha
Baleares; Universitat Jesús Padilla Gálvez Juan Roca Guillamón Linera
Ponpeu Fabra Universidad de Castilla-La Universidad de Murcia Univesidad de Oviedo Santiago Fernandez
Mancha Redondo
Carlos Ramon Laura Pozuelo Pérez Nicolás Bárcena Suárez Hospital Universitario La
Fernández Lies José Carlos Pinilla Universidad Autónoma de Universidad de Oviedo Princesa
Universidad Carlos III de Domínguez Madrid
Madrid Garrigues Abogados Orlanda Díaz-García Sebastián Cantallops
Luis Gaite Universidad de Castilla-La Mir
Christian Herrera José Fernández-Rañada Hospital Universitario Mancha Rambla Abogados &
Herrera Advocats Garrigues Abogados Marques de Valdecilla Asesores

194
Vicente Pastor y Prathiba St. Lucia Minouche Bromet Mauro Zamboni
Aldeguer Mahanamahewa Academic Hospital Stockholm University
Universidad Autónoma de University of Colombo; Alberta Richelieu Paramaribo
Madrid University of Technology Richelieu & Co. Olov Marsater
Jamaica Nashreen R. J. Ilahibaks University of Uppsala
Víctor Torre de Silva Alberton Richelieu Essed & Sohansingh
IE University Priyantha Gamage Richelieu & Co. Lawyers Reinhold Fahlbeck
Lund University
Xavier Castells R. M. N. U. Rajapaksha Henri-Jacques Mangal Prema Sohansingh
Universidad Autónoma de Ministry of Health 1st National Bank St. Law Firm Essed & Staffan Michelson
Barcelona Lucia Limited Sohansingh Hellström Advokatbyrå
S. R. L. Rosa
Anonymous The Open University of Sri Leandra Gabrielle Ramesh Arun V-A Sverker Jönsson
Contributors Lanka Verneuil Malahe Lund University
Jennifer Remy & Malahe Advocaten
Sri Lanka Savantha De Saram Associates Anonymous
D. L. & F. De Saram Ruby C. A. Bleau Contributors
Ajithaa Edirimane Mary Juliana Charles Lim A Po Lawfirm
Sumedha Mary Juliana Charles Tanzania
Anusha Mahawanniarachchi Chambers Serena N. Essed
Wickramasinghe Sewcharan Law Firm Anne H. Outwater
Upali Jayatilaka Tamara Foster Muhimbili University of
Camena Guneratne Office of the Director of Anonymous Health and Allied Sciences
The Open University of Sri Vinodh Public Prosecutions Contributors
Lanka Wickremasooriya Asina Omari
Anonymous Sweden University of Dar es Salaam
Chandima J. Ambepitiya Anonymous Contributors
Contributors Anne Ramberg Barnabas Hatson
Chrishantha Abeysena St. Vincent and the Swedish Bar Association Mwashambwa
University of Kelaniya St. Kitts and Nevis Grenadines Tanzania Petroleum
Bengt Lundell Development Corporation
D. M. Nisanka Dia C. Forrester Margaret Hughes Lund University
Madhubhashini Daniel Brantley Ferrari Deus M. Kibamba
Jayarathna Hughes & Company Birgitta Nysröm Tanzania Citizens'
The Open University of Sri Henry Los Browne Lund University Information Bureau
Lanka Browne & Associates Mikhail Charles
Prudhoe Caribbean Bjorn Ohde Eliud Kitime
Dhanushka Krysta S. Liburd-Clarke Advokataktiebolaget Open University of
Dissanayake Liburd Law Moureeze L. Franklyn Roslagen Tanzania
Baptiste & Co. Law Firm
Dushyantha Perera Kurlyn D. V. Merchant Boel Flodgren Emmanuel Charles
Sudath Perera Associates Merchant Legal Chambers Rene M.Baptiste Lund University Moshi
Baptiste & Co. Law Firm MMAKI Advocates;
Gamini Balasooriya Leonora L. Walwyn Catherine Lions University of Dodoma
Sudath Perera Associates Walwyn Law Stephen Williams Umea University
Williams & Williams Eric Frank Ringo
Gamini Perera Maurisha Robinson Chambers Christer Thordson FIN & LAW
International Law Morton Robinson, L.P. Legal Edge AB
Chambers Anonymous Ernestilla John Bahati
Michella Adrien Contributors Gunilla Lindmark Breakthrough Attorneys
Heshika Rupasinghe Michella Adrien Law Uppsala University
and Ramani Offices Suriname Eustard P. A. Ngatale
Muttettuwegama Jack Ågren
Tiruchelvam Associates Midge A. Morton Anne-Marel Linger Stockholm University Fundikila Wazambi
Williams 4 Justice Advocaten Legal and Human Rights
Kanchana Ratwatte Morton Robinson, L.P. Jessika van der Sluijs Centre
Antoon Karg Stockholm University
Kaumadi Galagedara Rayana Dowden North West Legal George Thomas
Webster LP Johan Sangborn Masoud
Kumudu Wijewardene Eloa Fanita van der Hilst Swedish Bar Association GMT Attorneys and Legal
University of Sri Shemica K. Maloney 4 Justice Advocaten Consultants
Jaywardenepura Maloney & Co. Karl-Arne Olsson
Francyn Djajadi WSA Law Gerald Nangi
Lasantha Hettiarachchi Sonya Parry Legal Aid Advocaten Clyde & Co.
Law Chambers of Gonsalves Parry Karol Nowak
Lasantha Hettiarachchi Humphrey R. Schurman Lund University Hakiel Ombeni Mgonja
Anonymous Schurman Advocaten Donaldson and Wood
Nalin Kumudu Contributors Laura Carlson
Ashubodha Maureen Tjon- Stockholm University Jones Sendodo
Kolonnawa Nursing Home Jaw-Chong Tanzania Human Rights
Defenders Coalition

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 195

 Kheri R. Mbiro Togo Martial Koffi Akakpo Tamara Jackson Nadhir Ben Yedder
Breakthrough Attorneys Martial Akakpo & Associes
Adjowavi Rose Adjenou Vernon Rooplal Prashad Rachida Jelassi
Lucky Michael Mgimba Atanley Raymond Adadjisso Prashad & Associates Université de Tunis El
Godwin Attorneys Clinique Autel d'Elie Men's Togo Manar
Anonymous
Mathias Omar Agbéwonou Koudasse Simtokina N'gani Contributors Ridha Mezghani
Human Rights Centre and Cabinet d'Avocat de Ministère de la Santé et de R. Mezghani Law Office
Advocacy for East Africa Maître Soedjede Galolo l'Hygiene Publique Tunisia
Wajdi Abdelhedi
Octavian W. Temu Akou Pignandi Sossinou Awoussi Amel Aouij Wab Expert
Octavian & Company Fonds Mondial de Lutte Ministère de la Santé et de Université de Tunis El
Advocates Contre le Sida et la l'Hygiene Publique Manar Anonymous
Tuberculose Contributors
Stephen Ally Thérèse Akouvi O. Amine Hamdi
Mwakibolwa Amèvi Kpogno Donu Hamdi Law Office Turkey
Alley & Associates Cabinet d'Avocats Darius Barreau du Togo
Atsoo Anissa Tabai Aysegul Kula
Anonymous Yaovi Montcho
Contributors Augustin Dokla Martial Akakpo & Associes Aymen Zaghdoudi Cem Yeniaras
RAS + Togo Carthage University Yeniaras Attorneys at Law
Thailand Yawo Apélété Agbobli
Claude Kokou Amegan CHU Campus de Lomé Brahim Latrech Demirhan Burak Çelik
Anant Akanisthaphichat Association Togolaise des Dr. Brahim Latrech Law Galatasaray University
Thai Law Firm Droits de l'Homme Anonymous Office
Contributors Ece Göztepe
Chacrit Sitdhiwej Damien Amoussou Elies Letaifa Bilkent University
Thammasat University Centre pour la Promotion Trinidad and Tobago Juris International
des Droits de l'Homme Esenyel Barak Bal
Chalermwut Sriporm et du Développement en Ariel Moonsie Elyes Chafter Cailliau & Colakel Law
Thammasat University Afrique Girwar & Deonarine Chafter Raouadi Cabinet Firm
d'Avocats
Chulapong Yukate Dékawunga Djoliba Betty-Ann Pilgrim Fatih Selim Yurdakul
Kutolbena Ministry of Health Emna Yahyaoui Yurdakul Law Office
Chusert Barreau du Togo; Cabinet
Supasitthumrong Me Kutolbena Christopher Sieuchand Fares Elheni, Najet Işık Önay
Tilleke & Gibbins M.G. Daly & Partners Skander, and Raouf Koç Üniversitesi
International Ferdinand Ekouévi Elheni
Amazohoun Dawn Gillian Seecharan Eversheds Sutherland Mahmut Kaçan
Ittichai Prasongprasit SCPA Femiza Associes Seecharan Scott Elheni MK Law Office
R&T Asia Limited Chambers
Jean Yaovi Degli Hassine Fekih Ahmed Murat Volkan Dülger
Munin Pongsapan Bâtir le Togo Gerard Hutchinson Dülger Law Office
Thammasat University University of the West Hechmi Louzir
Jil-Benoit Kossi Indies Institut Pasteur de Tunis Nuray Gökçek Karaca
Pisut Rakwong Afangbedji Anadolu University
Pisut & Partners Barreau du Togo Gina Maharaj Hedia Kedadi
Cabinet Kedadi Orhan Yavuz Mavioglu
Roll Chunhakasikarn Kafui A. Amekoudi Hasine Shaikh International ADMD Law Office
Tilleke & Gibbins Martial Akakpo & Associes Regius Chambers
International Imed Oussaifi Osman Hayran
Kodjo Kekeli Togbi Jerome Maxime La Cour d'Appel Medipol University
Sudarat Sereewat
FACE Foundation Kolou Simliwa Dassa Kaveeta Persad Inès Zribi Ozer Tuncay
Université de Lomé Fitzwilliam, Stone, L'Association Tunisienne Tuncay Law Office
Sumet Sirikunchoat Furness-Smith & Morgan de Droit de Santé
Thammasat University Kossi Adjedomole R. Murat Önok
Martial Akakpo & Associes Keri A. Kitson Insaf Ben Aoun Turkish Press Council
Wanchai Yiamsamatha
LS Horizon Kossi Assiom Bokodjin Michelle T. Ramnarine Karim Ben Hamida Savas Bozbel
Barreau du Togo KBH Law Firm Bozbel Law & Consulting
Wandee Oscar Noel Ocho
Sirichokchatchawan Koundé (Innocent) University of the West Lassâad Dhaouadi Serdar Hizir
Chulalongkorn University Kpeto Indies l'Institut Tunisien des Atilim University
Ordre National des Conseils Fiscaux
Anonymous Pharmaciens Petra A. Mahabalsingh Şule Özsoy Boyunsuz
Contributors Lex Caribbean Mahmoud Dawoud Galatasaray University
M. Koffi Houndebasso Yacoub
Société Togolaise de Sonnel David-Longe Ordre National des Ufuk Aydin
l'Evaluation -Evaluateurs M.G. Daly & Partners Avocats du Tunisie Anadolu University
émergents

196
Anonymous Laura Nyirinkindi Larysa Matiukha United Arab Emirates Maryellen Reynolds
Contributors Pro Initiatives Agency National Medical Attorneys Judicial Military
Academy of Postgraduate Ali Al Balooshi Mediators Consultants
Uganda Lilian Keene-Mugerwa Educational Al Balooshi & Al International Group
Kleeva Associated Marashda Advocates &
Adrian Jjuuko Advocates Lesia Sakalosh Legal Consultants Nigel Duncan
Human Rights Awareness Danylo Halytskyi Lviv
and Promotion Forum Mary Nalwoga National Medical El Mukashfi Majzoob Octávio Luiz Motta
Uganda Law Society University Al Balooshi & Al Ferraz
Albert Turyahabwe Marashda Advocates & King's College London
National Water and Miria Matembe Liliy V. Kriachkova Legal Consultants
Sewerage Corporation Dnipropetrovsk Medical Peter McTigue
Raymond Mwebesa Academy Haleama Al Sabbah Nottingham Trent
Alunga Patrick Alvarez Kampala Associated Zayed University University
BKA Advocates Advocates Lyubomyr Drozdovskyy
Khasin & Drozdovskyy Mirza R. Baig Rebecca Niblock
Atim Evelyn Robert Mugisa Barristers Association Dubai Pharmacy College Kingsley Napley LLP
Buwembo & Co. The Human Rights Centre for Girls
Advocates Uganda Oleksandr Skliarenko Richard Ashcroft
Skliarenko, Sydorenko and Nasiruddeen Queen Mary University of
Birungyi Cephas Ronald Tukachungurwa Partners Muhammad London
Kagyenda Kodili & Co. Advocates University of Dubai
Birungyi Barata & Oleksii Makarenkov Richard W. Whitecross
Associates Sam Mayanja Zaporizhzhya National Rami Omar Abdellatif Edinburgh Napier
Kampala Associated University Hadef & Partners University
Brigitte Kusiima Advocates
Byarugaba Sendi Olesia Otradnova Tessa Dignam Steven Lorber
Shonubi, Musoke and Co. Anonymous Taras Shevchenko IKM Advocates, DLA Piper Lewis Silkin LLP
Advocates Contributors National University of Kyiv Africa
Thomas Garner
Bwiite Lydia Ukraine Olga Prosyanyuk Zayed Saeed Alshamsi Gherson
Platform for Labour Action Zayed Alshamsi Advocates
Anna Mikhailyuk Pavlo Lukomskyi & Legal Consultants Tonia Novitz
C. K. Kalumiya Mikhailyuk, Sorokolat & Salkom Law Firm University of Bristol
Kampala Associated Partners Zeyad Jaffal
Advocates Roman Maydanyk Al Ain University Tony Ward
Anna Sakalosh Taras Shevchenko Northumbria University
Claire Amanya National University of Kyiv Anonymous
Rukundo-Kakeeto Evgen Ryabokon Contributors Anonymous
CR. Amanya Advocates & Taras Shevchenko Roman Sabodash Contributors
Solicitors National University of Kyiv Taras Shevchenko United Kingdom
National University of Kyiv United States
Doreen Nawaali Hryhoriy Trotskyy Cathy Scott-Clark
MMAKS Advocates Danylo Halytskyi Lviv Sergiy Gryshko Abigail Margaret Reay
National Medical Redcliffe Partners Christopher May Yull
Emmanuel Luyirika University Lancaster University Hewlett Packard
African Palliative Care Shkvorets Yaroslav Enterprise
Association Igor Fedorenko RULG - Ukrainian Legal David Josse
AVER LEX Attorneys at Group Five St. Andrew's Hill Alan W. Houseman
Ferdinand Tumuhaise Law Chambers National Equal Justice
Son of Loyola Legal Taras Tsymbrivskyy Library
Consultants Iryna Shevchuk Human Rights in Action, Gavin Irwin
Engarde Attorneys at Law USAID; Ukrainian Helsinki Chambers of Jonathan Allen S. Weiner
Francis Opedun Human Rights Union Laidlaw QC Stanford University
Mutalya & Co. Advocates Ivan Horodyskyy
Ukrainian Catholic Viktoriia Ivchuk Jill Stavert Amy Widman
Fredrck K. Sentomero University KNP Clinic Edinburgh Napier Rutgers University
OSH Advocates University
Katerina Vlasyuk Vladislava Pukhalenko Artie Renee Pobjecky
Grace Mukwaya AVG Law Firm Leshchenko, Doroshenko Jonathan S. Pobjecky and Pobjecky,
Platform for Labour Action & Partners Nguyen-Van-Tam LLP
Konstantin Naduty University of Nottingham
Idoot Augustine Obilil Ukrainian Medical Expert Vyacheslav Sokolov Bryan A. Liang
Kampala Associated Association Paradox Law Firm Jonathan Stuart S-3 Research
Advocates Mitchell
Kostiantyn Doroshenko Anonymous Chambers of Paul Charles Garcia
Justine Balya Leshchenko, Doroshenko Contributors Mandelle Hewlett Packard
Human Rights Awareness & Partners Enterprise
and Promotion Forum Kyle Phillips
Fieldfisher Christopher R. Drahozal
University of Kansas

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 197

 David K. Y. Tang Stephen A. Saltzburg Magela Ramón Madina Tursunova Bernardo Pulido
K&L Gates, LLP The George Washington Hughes & Hughes Legalmax Law Firm Márquez
University Consultores Jurídicos
H. David Kelly, Jr. Manuel Reyes Puig Minora Ferdovsievna
Beins Axelrod PC Stephen C. Veltri Intrust Business Solutions Saydahmedova Catherina Gallardo
Ohio Northern University Legisland Law Office Gallardo Vaudo y
James H. Pietsch María Durán Asociados
University of Hawaii Steven Ramirez Hughes & Hughes Muratayev Serikbey
Loyola University Chicago Alpamisovich Claudia Madrid
Jeffrey Aresty Mariana Fernandez Tashkent State University Martínez
InternetBar.org Institute Tarek Azhari Fasciolo of Law Universidad Central de
Hewlett Packard Universidad de la Venezuela
John Pollock Enterprise República Yana Niyazmetova
National Coalition for a Azizov and Partners Diego Thomás
Civil Right to Counsel Tim K. Mackey Martín Miguel Fridman Castagnino
University of California Monasterolo Ziyoda Ataxodjaeva Universidad Central de
John R. LaBar San Diego Ferrere Abogados Turon Mega Stroy LLC Venezuela
Henry, McCord, Bean,
Miller, Gabriel & LaBar, Timothy E. Dolan Martín Risso Ferrand Anonymous Eduardo J. Sánchez R.
P.L.L.C. Policy Foresight Universidad Católica del Contributors Álvarez, Sánchez &
Uruguay Asociados Abogados
Jonathan Hiatt Vernellia Randall Venezuela, RB
Solidarity Center The University of Dayton Natalia Veloso Edward Pérez
Universidad de Alberto Blanco-Uribe Instituto Interamericano
Karen A. Lash Anonymous Montevideo Quintero de Responsabilidad Social
American University Contributors Universidad Central de y Derechos Humanos
Nicolás Pallas Venezuela
Kepler B. Funk Uruguay Posadas, Posadas & Ernesto Gonzalez Rubio
Funk, Szachacz & Vecino Alberto Jurado Casas Rincon, Gonzalez
Diamond, LLC Alfredo Taullard ALC Penal Rubio & Asoc.
Hughes & Hughes Pedro J. Montano
Laurel G. Bellows Gómez Alejandro Risquez Parra Eugenio
Bellows Law Group PC Andrés Fuentes Scelza & Montano Estudio Universidad Central de Hernández-Bretón
Arcia Storace Fuentes Jurídico Venezuela Academia de Ciencias
Leonard A. Sandler Medina Abogados Políticas y Sociales
University of Iowa Ricardo Mezzera Alessandra Corona
Camilo Martínez Blanco Mezzera Abogados Araquereyna; Harvard Faustino Flamarique
Maha Jweied Universidad de University LEGA Abogados
Montevideo Santiago Pereira
Matthew Keck Campos Alexander Marcano Félix Ignacio Sánchez
Hewlett Packard Carlos Pittamiglio Rueda Abadi Pereira; Montero Hernández
Enterprise Estudio Jurídico Universidad de Lawyers Group, Despacho Álvarez, Sánchez &
Bartesaghi Montevideo de Abogados Asociados Abogados
Michele Forzley
Forzley & Associates Eduardo Ferrari Santiago Theoduloz Alí Daniels Fernando Javier Baralt
Posadas, Posadas & Guyer & Regules Acceso a la Justicia Briceño
Paul Bender Vecino Universidad Rafael
Arizona State University Tomás Guerrero Alvaro Badell Madrid Urdaneta
Escandor El Ters Posadas, Posadas & Badell & Grau
Renaldy J. Gutierrez Instituto Nacional del Vecino Fernando M. Fernandez
Gutierrez & Associates Cáncer Andrea Cardone
Anonymous Álvarez, Sánchez & Francisco Allende
Renée M. Landers Isabel Abarno Contributors Asociados Abogados Cámara Venezolana del
Suffolk University Delpiazzo Abogados Medicamento
Uzbekistan Andrés Carrasquero
Ricks Frazier Joaquin Reyes Puig Stolk Franco Puppio Pérez
Reyes Rius Abdujabbor ESC+G Abogados Universidad Católica
Robert J. Collins The Council of the Social Andrés Bello
University of Pennsylvania Juan Diego Menghi Democratic Party of Andres L. Halvorssen
Arburúas Uzbekistan RdHOO Abogados Frederick Cabrera
Roy M. Poses Pérez del Castillo & Conde
Brown University Asociados Aziz Sattarov Antonio Silva Universidad Católica
Reliable Lawyer Law Firm Aranguren Andrés Bello; Universidad
Russell C. Maulitz Juan Federico Fischer Centro para la Integración Central de Venezuela
Tapestry Health Andersen Tax & Legal Botir Yigitaliev y el Derecho Público
Information Technologies, CODEX Law Firm Fredy Ernesto Martinez
LLC Julio Lens Arturo De Sola Lander Diaz
LENS Ilkhom Azizov De Sola Pate & Brown Martinez Diaz & Asocia-
Sara Elizabeth Dill Azizov and Partners dos Firma de Abogados
Anethum Global Lucía Acosta Beatriz Borges Urrutia
Ferrere Abogados Jakhongir Z. Djuraev

198
Gilberto A. Laura Louza Valentina Arianna Pham Van Phat Yusuf Ahmed
Guerrero-Rocca Acceso a la Justicia Russo Borzellino An Phat Pham Law Firm University Teaching
Florida International Cigala, Puppio y Asociados Hospitals
University Lolymar Hernández Phong
Camargo Victor R. CNC VN Anonymous
Gilles Valensi Sosa Universidad Católica Hernández-Mendible Contributors
Andrés Bello HMO Consultores Tran Thanh Tung
Gonzalo Himiob Internacionales Global Vietnam Lawyers Zimbabwe
Santomè Manuel A. Gomez Law Firm
Foro Penal Florida International Victor Rujano Bautista Abraham Mateta
University Asociación Civil Culturas Vu Dzung MC Mukome Legal
Guillermo López Indígenas y Medio YKVN Lawyers Practitioners
Bolet & Terrero Maria Delina Sánchez Ambiente Sustentable
Villegas Anonymous Andrew Makoni
Hector Cardoze Rangel Loreto Abogados Yeoshua Bograd Contributors Mbidzo, Muchadehama &
Universidad Central de Penalistas Lamberti Makoni Legal Practitioners
Venezuela Zambia
María Gabriela Vicent Zuleima Espinel Archlove Takunda
Ignacio J. Andrade Allende JBA Legal Annie Kangwa Chewe Tanyanyiwa
Cifuentes Dentons University of Zambia Ramangwana Grassroots
Ponte Andrade & Anonymous Development Initiative
Casanova Mauricio Ramirez Contributors Ernest Muketoi Beele
Gordon University of Zambia Bright Mahuni
Jacqueline Richter Fundación Verdad Vietnam Scanlen & Holderness
Universidad Central de Venezuela Fares Phiri
Venezuela Danny Đức Duy Nodi Trust School Casper Pound
Natasha Saturno Santa Lawyers Company Family AIDS Support
Jaime Martínez Estévez Siñovsky Isaac Simbeye Organisation
Rodner, Martínez & Acción Solidaria David Lam Muyatwa Legal
Asociados The Lam Law Company Practitioners Charisma Ncube
Nayibe Chacón Gómez Limited Scanlen & Holderness
Javier Alfredo Villamizar Universidad Central de Jacqueline Cornhill
Gordon Venezuela Do Thi Hang Jhala Chiratidzo Ellen
Palacios, Torres & Korody ANT Lawyers Law Firm Corpus Legal Practitioners Ndhlovu
Nelson Chitty La Roche University of Zimbabwe
Jorge Rosell Senhenn Universidad Central de Haley Chau Kim Hanh John Chibalabala
Bloque Constitucional Venezuela Le & Tran John Chibalabala Legal Cinginkosi Dube
Practitioners Scanlen & Holderness
José Rafael Vargas Oscat Hernández Kent Wong
Rincón Alvarez VCI Legal Mehluli Malisa David Tinashe Hofisi
José Rafael Vargas, S.C. Batakathi University of
Rafael Ignacio Olivar Le An Hai Muyatwa Legal Wisconsin-Madison
Juan Alberto Berríos Escritorio Jurídico Practitioners
Ortigoza Aguilarte y Asociados Le Tien Dat Edwin Isaac Manikai
Universidad del Zulia Apolat Legal Law Firm Namwene Kamoto Phiri Dube, Manikai & Hwacha
Rafael Molina Corpus Legal Practitioners
Juan Carlos Molina & Asociados Le Van Thanh Elizabeth M.
Garantón-Blanco SureLaw Law Firm O'Brien Kaaba Chadambuka
Universidad Católica Raul Sanchez Urribarri University of Zambia Africa University
Andrés Bello La Trobe University Ngo Huu Nhi
Thien An Law Office Oscar Kaubi Farai Chizengeni
Juan Carlos Oliveira Reinaldo Jesús Guilarte Mopani Copper Mines PLC
Bonomi Lamuño Nguyen Huu Phuoc Fraser Edkins
RdHOO Abogados Ayala Dillon Fernández Phuoc and Associates Pamela Sibanda Mumbi Coghlan Welsh and Guest
Linares Chavero SCM Legal Practitioners
Juan Carlos Sainz Borgo Consultores Jurídicos Nguyen Nam Hung Godfrey Sibanda
University for Peace VPS Securities Company Pamela Towela Sambo Mbidzo, Muchadehama &
Ricardo J. Cruz Rincón Makoni Legal Practitioners
Juan Domingo Alfonzo Escritorio Chumaceiro Nguyen Nhan Quang Sebastian Chinkoyo
Paradisi González Rubio Ndola Teaching Hospital Godman Chingoma
Torres Plaz y Araujo Nguyen Nhan Tuan Dube, Manikai & Hwacha
Roberto Hung Cavalieri Tiziana Marietta
Julio César Fernández Cultura Jurídica Org Nguyen Truong Tho Sharpe & Howard Legal Hezel Sibanda
Toro Dai Nghia Law Office Practitioners Maweresibanda
Universidad Central de Rubén Guía Chirino Commercial Lawyers
Venezuela Cultura Jurídica Org Phạm Thị Thoa Vincent Kaunda
Apolat Legal Law Firm Mwewa Jeremiah Mutongi
Karla Andreína Sáez Simón Jurado-Blanco Messrs V K Mwewa and Bamu
Rodríguez Sandoval Phạm Tri Dung Company Mbidzo, Muchadehama &
ESC+G Abogados Jurado-Blanco & Aguirre Hanoi University of Public Makoni Legal Practitioners
Abogados Health

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 199

 Kudzai Caroline Tandi Tariro Dzinomwa
Mangwiro Tandi Law National University of
Science and Technology
Maxwell C. C. Musingafi
Zimbabwe Open Tawanda Tandi
University Kantor & Immerman Legal
Practitioners
Memory Kudzayi
Melody Terence Hussein
Scanlen & Holderness Hussein Ranchhod and
Co.
Mordecai Pilate
Mahlangu Tshuma Mercia Monica
Gill Godlonton & Gerrans Zambezi Law Trust

Moses Nkomo Anonymous

DNM Attorneys Contributors

Moyo Evans T.
Scanlen & Holderness

Mutsa Remba
Dube, Manikai & Hwacha

Nobert Musa Phiri

Muvingi & Mugadza Legal
Practitioners

Nyasha Brighton
Munyuru
Muvingi & Mugadza Legal
Practitioners

Obey Shava
Mbidzo, Muchadehama &
Makoni Legal Practitioners

Paidamoyo Bryne
Saurombe
Adventist Lawyers
Association; Scanlen and
Holderness; Zimbabwe
Lawyers for Human Rights

Philemon Mutukwa
N. Mashizha and
Associates Legal
Practitioners

Reveal E.
Nyamayemombe
Muvingi & Mugadza Legal
Practitioners

Simon Sadomba
Gill Godlonton & Gerrans

Simplicio Bhebhe
Kantor & Immerman Legal
Practitioners

Tafadzwa Ralph
Mugabe
Tafadzwa Ralph Mugabe
Legal Counsel

Tapiwanashe Mukandi
Scanlen & Holderness

200
Acknowledgements
The World Justice Project’s Honorary Chairs, Directors, Officers, Staff, Financial Supporters, and Sponsoring
Organizations are listed in the last section of this report. Polling companies, research organizations, and contributing
experts are listed in the Methodology section of this report.

Academic Advisors Toby Mendel, Centre for Law and Democracy; Nicholas Kaur; Anne Kelley; Howard Kenison; Junaid Khalid;
Menzies, The World Bank; Ghada Moussa, Cairo Elsa Khwaja; Stuti Kokkalera; Simeon Koroma; Steven

Mark David Agrast, American Society of International University; Sam Muller, HiiL; Robert L. Nelson, American H. Kraft; Larry D. Kramer; Jack Krumholtz; Lianne

Law; Jose M. Alonso, World Wide Web Foundation; Bar Foundation and Northwestern University; Alfonsina Labossiere; Joanna Lim; Deborah Lindholm; Annie

Rolf Alter, OECD; Eduardo Barajas, Universidad del Peñaloza, Hewlett Foundation; Harris Pastides, Livingston; Jeanne L. Long; Carlos López; Clarissa

Rosario; Maurits Barendrecht, Tilburg University; University of South Carolina; Randal Peerenboom, La Lopez-Diarte; Maha Mahmoud; Biawakant Mainali;

Tonu Basu, Open Government Partnership; Lowell Trobe University and Oxford University; Angela Pinzon, Andrew Makoni; Dijana Malbaša; Ermek Mamaev; Frank

Bergman, University of California, Berkeley; Tim Besley, Universidad del Rosario; Pascoe Pleasence, University Mantero; Madison Marks; Roger Martella; Vivek Maru;

London School of Economics; Christina Biebesheimer, College London; Shannon Portillo, George Mason John Mason; Elisa Massimino; Hiroshi Matsuo; Michael

The World Bank; Juan Carlos Botero, Pontificia University; Michael H. Posner, New York University; Maya; Sindi Medar-Gould; Ludmila Mendonça; Ellen

Universidad Javeriana; Paul Brest, Stanford University; Roy L. Prosterman, University of Washington; Mignoni; Aisha Minhas; María Cristina Montaño; Claros

Jose Caballero, IMD Business School; David Caron, Anita Ramasastry, University of Washington; Mor Morean; Junichi Morioka; Marion Muller; Norhayati

Kings College, London; Thomas Carothers, Carnegie Rubinstein, Open Knowledge Foundation; Angela Ruiz, Mustapha; Ilija Nedelkoski; Niku Neshati; Javier Nicolás;

Endowment; Marcela Castro, Universidad de los Andes; Universidad del Rosario; Audrey Sacks, The World Bank; Daniel Nitu; Elida Nogoibaeva; Victoria Norelid; Justin

Peter Chapman, Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI); Lutforahman Saeed, Kabul University; Michaela Saisana, Nyekan; Sean O’Brien; Peggy Ochanderena; Bolaji

Eduardo Cifuentes, Universidad de los Andes; Sherman EU-JRC; Andrea Saltelli, EU-JRC; Moises Sanchez, Olaniran; Joy Olson; Mohamed Olwan; Gustavo Alanis

Cohn, Georgetown University; Christine M. Cole, Alianza Regional por la Libertad de Expresión; Andrei Ortega; Bolaji Owasanoye; Pablo Parás; Angeles Melano

Crime & Justice Institute; Mariano-Florentino Cuellar, Shleifer, Harvard University; Jorge Luis Silva, The World Paz; Ronen Plechnin; Kamal Pokhrel; John Pollock;

Stanford University; Helen Darbishire, Access Info Bank; Gordon Smith, University of South Carolina; Mercy Alejandra Portillo; Cynthia Powell; Humberto

Europe; Nicolas Dassen, Inter-American Development Christopher Stone, Open Society Foundations; John Prado Sifontes; Nathalie Rakotomalia; Javier Ramirez;

Bank; Larry Diamond, Stanford University; Claudia J. Temple, University of California, Berkeley; Rene Uruena, Eduardo Ramos-Gómez; Daniela Rampani; Richard

Dumas, Transparency International USA; Sandra Elena, Universidad de los Andes; Stefan Voigt, University of Randerson; Claudia Rast; Yahya Rayegani; Adrian F.

Ministerio de Justicia y Derechos Humanos; Brad Hamburg; Barry Weingast, Stanford University; Michael Revilla; Salvador Reyes; Lopes Ribeiro; Nigel H. Roberts;

Epperly, University of South Carolina; Julio Faundez, Woolcock, The World Bank. Amir Ron; Liz Ross; Irma Russell; Marc Sepama; Adam

Warwick University; Hazel Feigenblatt, Global Integrity; Severance; Bruce Sewell; Uli Parmlian Sihombing; Hajrija

Todd Foglesong, Munk School of Global Affairs at the Roland Abeng; Lukman Abdul-Rahim; Mariam Ahmed; Sijerčić-Čolić; William Sinnott; Lumba Siyanga; Brad

University of Toronto; Tom Ginsburg, University of Lina Alameddine; Sarah Alexander; Jessica Álvarez; Smith; Julie Smith; Lourdes Stein; Thomas M. Susman;

Chicago; Joseph Foti, Open Government Partnership; Rose Karikari Anang; Evelyn Ankumah; Jassim Alshamsi; Elizabeth Thomas-Hope; Laurence Tribe; Martha Uc;

James Goldston, Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI); Jessica Álvarez; Ekaterina Baksanova; Hamud M. Balfas; Patricia van Nispen; Robert Varenik; Maria Vinot;

Jorge Gonzalez, Universidad Javeriana; Alejandro Laila El Baradei; Rachael Beitler; Laurel Bellows; Clever Raymond Webster; Dorothee Wildt; Jason Wilks; Malin

Gonzalez-Arriola, Open Government Partnership; Jon Bere; Rindala Beydoun; Karan K. Bhatia; Cherie Blair; Winbom; Nazgul Yergalieva; Xueling You; Stephen Zack;

Gould, American University; Martin Gramatikov, HiiL; Rob Boone; Raúl Izurieta Mora Bowen; Ariel Braunstein; Jorge Zapp-Glauser; Roula Zayat.

Brendan Halloran, Transparency and Accountability Kathleen A. Bresnahan; Michael Brown; William

Initiative; Linn Hammergren; Tim Hanstad, Landesa; R. Brownfield; David Bruscino; Carolina Cabrera; Institutional Contributors
Wassim Harb, Arab Center for the Development of Javier Castro De León; John Catalfamo; Fahima and Advisors
Rule of Law and Integrity; Nathaniel Heller, Open Charaffeddine; David Cheyette; Sophie Clark; Jose

Government Partnership; Vanessa Herringshaw, Cochingyan, III; Sonkita Conteh; Barbara Cooperman; Altus Global Alliance; APCO Worldwide; Fleishman-

Transparency and Accountability Initiative; Susan Hans Corell; Adriana Cosgriff; Alexander E. Davis; Beth Hillard; The Center for Advanced Study in the

Hirsch, George Mason University; Ronald Janse, Davis; James P. DeHart; Brackett B. Denniston, III; Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University; The Center on

University of Amsterdam Law School; Erik G. Jensen, Russell C. Deyo; Surya Dhungel; Adama Dieng; Andrew Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law, Stanford

Stanford University; Haroon Khadim, PAE; Rachel Domingoes; Sandra Elena; Roger El Khoury; Sanal University; The German Bar Association in Brussels;

Kleinfeld, Carnegie Endowment; Jack Knight, Duke Enkhbaatar; Adele Ewan; Juan Farré; Fatima Fettar; Eric Governance Data Alliance; Google Inc.; The Hague

University; Harold H. Koh, Yale University; Margaret Florenz; Abderrahim Foukara; Kristina Fridman; Morly Institute for Innovation of Law (HiiL); Investigative

Levi, Stanford University; Iris Litt, Stanford University; Frishman; Viorel Furdui; Minoru Furuyama; William Reporting Program, UC Berkeley Graduate School of

Clare Lockhart, The Institute for State Effectiveness; H. Gates, Sr.; Anna Gardner; Sujith George; Adam Journalism; The Legal Department of Hewlett Packard

Zsuzsanna Lonti, OECD; Diego Lopez, Universidad de Gerstenmier; Jacqueline Gichinga; Suzanne E. Gilbert; Enterprise; The Legal Department of Microsoft

los Andes; William T. Loris, Loyola University; Lauren Felipe Gómez; Nengak Daniel Gondyi; Lindsey Graham; Corporation; The Whitney and Betty MacMillan Center

E. Loveland, National Democratic Institute (NDI); Paul Deweh Gray; Michael S. Greco; Elise Groulx; Heena for International and Area Studies, Yale University; Rule

Maassen, Open Government Partnership; Beatriz Gupta; Arkady Gutnikov; Karen Hall; Kunio Hamada; of Law Collaborative, University of South Carolina; The

Magaloni, Stanford University; Jenny S. Martinez, Sana Hawamdeh; Alvaro Herrero; Sheila Hollis; Michael University of Chicago Law School; Vera Institute of

Stanford University; Toby McIntosh, FreedomInfo.org; Holston; R. William Ide, III; Murtaza Jaffer; Sunil Kumar Justice.
Joshi; Marie-Therese Julita; Megan Kabre; Rashvin

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 201

 About the World Justice Project
The World Justice Project (WJP) is an independent, multidisciplinary organization working to create knowledge, build awareness, and
stimulate action to advance the rule of law worldwide. Effective rule of law reduces corruption, combats poverty and disease, and
protects people from injustices large and small. It is the foundation for communities of justice, opportunity, and peace—underpinning
development, accountable government, and respect for fundamental rights.
Our Approach
Traditionally, the rule of law has been
viewed as the domain of lawyers and
judges. However, everyday issues of
safety, rights, justice, and governance
affect us all; everyone is a stakeholder in
the rule of law. Based on this, the WJP
builds and supports a global, multi-
disciplinary movement for the rule of
law by:
1. Collecting, organizing, and analyzing
original, independent rule of law data,
including the WJP Rule of Law Index;
2. Supporting research, scholarship, and
teaching about the importance of rule of
law, its relationship to development, and
effective strategies to strengthen it; and
3. Connecting and building an engaged
global network of policy-makers and
advocates to advance the rule of
law through strategic partnerships,
convenings, coordinated advocacy, and
support for locally-led initiatives, including
through the Resource Hub, a directory
of leading organizations advancing the
rule of law worldwide; the World Justice
Challenge, a competition to identify,
recognize, and promote good practices
and successful solutions for strengthening
the rule of law worldwide; and the World
Justice Forum.
202
Honorary Chairs Board of Directors
The World Justice Project has the support Shaikha Abdulla Al-Misnad; Kamel
of outstanding leaders representing a Ayadi; William C. Hubbard; Hassan
range of disciplines around the world. The Bubacar Jallow; Suet-Fern Lee; Mondli
Honorary Chairs of the World Justice Makhanya; M. Margaret McKeown; John
Project are: Nery; William H. Neukom; Ellen Gracie
Northfleet; James R. Silkenat; and Petar
Madeleine Albright; Giuliano Amato; Stoyanov.
Robert Badinter; James A. Baker
III; Cherie Blair; Stephen G. Breyer;
Sharan Burrow; David Byrne; Jimmy
Director Emeritus
Carter; Maria Livanos Cattaui; Emil
Constantinescu; Hans Corell; Hilario G.
President Dr. Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai
Davide, Jr.; Hernando de Soto; Adama
Dieng; William H. Gates, Sr.; Ruth Bader
Ginsburg; Richard J. Goldstone; Kunio
Hamada; Lee H. Hamilton; Mohamed
Ibrahim; Tassaduq Hussain Jillani; Anthony
M. Kennedy; Beverley McLachlin; George
J. Mitchell; Sandra Day O’Connor;
Ana Palacio; Colin L. Powell; Roy L.
Prosterman; Richard W. Riley; Mary
Robinson; Richard Trumka; Desmond
Tutu; Antonio Vitorino; Harold Woolf; and
Andrew Young.
Officers and Staff
William C. Hubbard, Board Chair; William
H. Neukom, Founder and CEO; Mark D.
Agrast, Vice President; Deborah Enix-
Ross, Vice President; Nancy Ward, Vice
President; James R. Silkenat, Director
and Treasurer; Gerold W. Libby, General
Counsel and Secretary.
Staff and Consultants: Elizabeth
Andersen, Executive Director; Paul
Fisher, Chief Development Officer;
Matthew Harman, Chief Communications
Officer; Ted Piccone, Chief Engagement
Officer; Alejandro Ponce, Chief Research
Officer; Richard Schorr, Chief Financial
and Administrative Officer; Tim Kessler,
Country Director; Laura Aquino; Ester
Arroyo; Courtney Babcock; Lindsey
Bock; Isabel Campana; Erin Campbell;
Ana Cardenas; Estefany Caudillo; Lilian
Chapa Koloffon; Glenda Charles; Maria
Chavarria; Miguel Contreras; Paulina Del
Paso; Killian Dorier; Alicia Evangelides;
Vianney Fernández; Marco Ivan Figueroa;
Emma Frerichs; Joshua Fuller; Amir
Galvan; Felipe Gomez; Erendira Gonzalez;
Lucia Gonzalez; Kirssy González; Amy
Gryskiewicz; Juan Carlos Guarneros; Issa
Guerra; Fernando Gutierrez O.; Joseph
Haley; Irene Heras; Roberto Hernández;
Jaya Khetarpal; Priyanka Khosla; Sarah
Chamness Long; Alejandro Lopez;
Rafael Lozano; Debby Manley; Gabriela
Marquez; Joel Martinez; Oswaldo Mejia;
Ignacio Miranda; Jorge A. Morales; Jason
Murray; Layda Negrete; Fernando Omedé;
Marien Rivera; Mario Rodríguez; Natalia
Rodríguez Cajamarca; Juan Salgado;
Alicia Segovia; Rebecca Silvas; Leslie Solís
Saravia; Marcelo Torres; Paulina Vega;
Gerard Vinluan; and Emily Youatt.
World Justice Project Funders WJP League of Law Firms 2019-2020
The World Justice Project thanks the Cooley
following major 2019-2020 donors whose Davis Wright Tremaine
support makes our work possible: Fenwick & West
K&L Gates
American Bar Association – Section of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough
Environment, Energy, and Resources
Perkins Coie
American Council of Learned Societies White & Case
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati Foundation
British Council Zuber Lawler & Del Duca
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
A list of funders can be found at:
Cordaid
worldjusticeproject.org.
Barbara and R. Bradford Evans
German Corporation for International
Cooperation
Hague Institute for Innovation of Law
Hague Municipality
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Inter-American Development Bank
Jones Day
Knowledge Management Fund
LexisNexis
Microsoft Corporation
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the
Netherlands
Mo Ibrahim Foundation
Neukom Family Foundation
Open Society Justice Initiative
Sally and William H. Neukom
United States Agency for International
Development
United States Department of State
Nancy Ward and Toby Bright
Kent Walker and Diana Walsh
Western Hemisphere Drug Policy
Commission
WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 203
 Effective rule of law
reduces corruption,
combats poverty
and disease, and
protects people
from injustices large
and small.
204
Rule of Law
“Laws of justice which Hammurabi, the wise
king, established… That the strong might
not injure the weak, in order to protect the
widows and orphans..., in order to declare
justice in the land, to settle all disputes, and
heal all injuries.”
–Codex Hammurabi
“Treat the people equally in your court and
give them equal attention, so that the
noble shall not aspire to your partiality, nor
the humble despair of your justice.”
–Judicial Guidelines from ‘Umar Bin
Al-Khattab, The Second Khalifa of Islam’
“All human beings are born free and equal in
dignity and rights… Everyone is entitled to
all the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Declaration, without distinction of any kind,
such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, “The Law of Nations, however, is common
political or other opinion, national or social to the entire human race, for all nations
origin, property, birth or other status.”
–Universal Declaration of Human Rights
–Corpus Juris Civilis
“We are all servants of the laws in order that
we may be free.”
–Cicero (106 BCE - 43 BCE)
“No freeman is to be taken or imprisoned
or disseised of his free tenement or of his
liberties or free customs, or outlawed or
exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go
against such a man or send against him
save by lawful judgement of his peers or by
the law of the land. To no-one will we sell
or deny or delay right or justice.”
–Magna Carta
“I could adjudicate lawsuits as well as
anyone. But I would prefer to make law-
suits unnecessary.”
–Analects of Confucius
“It is more proper that law should govern
than any one of the citizens.”
–Aristotle, Politics (350 BCE)
“If someone disobeys the law, even if he is
(otherwise) worthy, he must be punished.
If someone meets the standard, even if he
is (otherwise) unworthy, he must be found
innocent. Thus the Way of the public good
will be opened up, and that of private
interest will be blocked.”
–The Huainanzi 139 BCE (Han Dynasty,
China)
have established for themselves certain
regulations exacted by custom and human
necessity.”
“Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins.”
–John Locke, Two Treatises of
Government (1689)
“Good civil laws are the greatest good that
men can give and receive. They are the
source of morals, the palladium of property,
and the guarantee of all public and private
peace. If they are not the foundation of
government, they are its supports; they
moderate power and help ensure respect
for it, as though power were justice itself.”
–Jean-Étienne-Marie Portalis, Discours
Préliminaire du Premier Projet de Code
Civil
WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 205
More from the World Justice Project

ED

World Justice Project

O

Rule of
G
R

Law Index
BA

2018-2019
2019
EM

WJP Rule of Law Index 2019 WJP Rule of Law Index 2019 Insights WJP Mexico States Rule of
Highlights and data trends from the WJP Law Index 2019-2020
Rule of Law Index 2019 Perceptions and experiences in 32 states

Realizing Justice For All Global Insights on Access to Justice 2019 Measuring the Justice Gap 2019
World Justice Forum Report 2019 Findings from the World Justice Project A People-Centered Assessment of Unmet
General Population Poll in 101 Countries Justice Needs Around the World

For more information or to read these reports, visit

worldjusticeproject.org/our-work

WJP Rule of Law Index 2020 207

WASHINGTON, DC SEATTLE SINGAPORE MEXICO CITY

worldjusticeproject.org facebook.com/ thewjp twitter.com/theWJP