# DFI Special Research Request: Independent Accountability Institution Bonus Assessment

**Country to be assessed:** [INSERT COUNTRY NAME HERE]

## Introduction to the Democratic Fitness Indicator (DFI)

The Democratic Fitness Indicator (DFI) is a comprehensive framework for measuring how effectively citizens can exercise their democratic power at the national level. The DFI evaluates seven categories of democratic mechanisms including elections, referenda, citizens' assemblies, and safeguards, with a focus on direct participation and institutional accountability.

## The Accountability Bonus Explained

Within the "Holding Politicians Accountable" category (worth 15% of the total DFI), countries can receive a significant bonus when they have independent institutions that provide citizens with mechanisms to address official misconduct outside regular electoral cycles:

- **20% bonus** is awarded when a country has an independent institution with legally binding remedial powers
- **10% bonus** is awarded when these remedial powers are influential but technically non-binding

For the bonus to apply, the institution must meet ALL four of these criteria:
1) Has authority to investigate alleged misconduct by elected officials and public servants at any level (including the highest in government)
2) Can issue remedial actions (binding or non-binding)
3) Is accessible to citizens through direct complaints
4) Functions outside regular electoral, legislative, and judicial processes

The total score for the "Holding Politicians Accountable" category cannot exceed 100% (15% of total DFI), even if the bonus would mathematically result in a higher score.

## Research Purpose

This research request is designed to collect evidence determining whether the country qualifies for the 20% or 10% bonus in the "Holding Politicians Accountable" category of the DFI. The research should focus exclusively on collecting evidence directly relevant to the four criteria, avoiding extraneous information.

## Part 1: Institution Identification

### 1.1 Candidate Institution(s)

Identify the most likely candidate institution(s) that could qualify for this bonus. Common examples include:
- Ombudsman/Public Protector
- Supreme Audit Office/Court of Accounts
- Anti-Corruption Commission/Bureau
- Public Standards Commissioner
- Special Prosecutor/Independent Counsel
- Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

**Required Documentation:**
```
CANDIDATE INSTITUTION IDENTIFICATION:
Primary institution name: [Official name in English and local language]
Constitutional/legal basis: [Article/section reference]
Year established: [Year]
Additional relevant institutions: [List if multiple institutions might qualify]
```

## Part 2: Authority Over Elected Officials

### 2.1 Legal Authority Scope

Document the explicit legal authority to investigate elected officials:

**Required Documentation:**
```
LEGAL AUTHORITY VERIFICATION:
Constitutional provisions: 
"[Direct quote establishing constitutional authority]"
SOURCE: [Constitution Article/Section]

Implementing legislation:
"[Direct quote from relevant law defining scope of authority]"
SOURCE: [Law name, Article/Section]

Jurisdiction over highest officials:
"[Direct quote confirming authority extends to president/prime minister/ministers/legislators]"
SOURCE: [Specific legal provision]

Authority limitations:
"[Direct quote of any exceptions or immunities]"
SOURCE: [Specific legal provision]
```

### 2.2. Practical Implementation Evidence

Document evidence of actual investigations involving elected officials:

**Required Documentation:**
```
INVESTIGATION EVIDENCE:
High-level elected official investigations (last 10 years):
1. [Case name/description] ([Year]) - [Position of official(s) investigated]
   "[Brief description of misconduct alleged]"
   SOURCE: [Official report citation or reputable documentation]

2. [Additional cases - at least 3 examples if available]

Legislative branch investigations:
1. [Case involving member of parliament/legislature]
   SOURCE: [Citation]

Investigation statistics (if available):
- Total investigations of elected officials: [Number over defined period]
- Breakdown by official type: [e.g., 5 ministers, 3 legislators, etc.]
SOURCE: [Annual reports or statistical publications]
```

## Part 3: Remedial Powers Assessment

### 3.1 Legal Framework for Remedial Actions

Document the legal basis for the institution's remedial powers:

**Required Documentation:**
```
REMEDIAL POWERS LEGAL BASIS:
Legal provisions on remedial powers:
"[Direct quote of provisions establishing remedial authority]"
SOURCE: [Law, Article/Section]

Binding vs. Non-binding determination:
"[Direct quote specifying whether recommendations are binding]"
SOURCE: [Law or court decision establishing this status]

Enforcement mechanisms:
"[Direct quote describing how decisions are enforced]"
SOURCE: [Relevant provisions]
```

### 3.2 Practical Effectiveness of Remedial Powers

Document evidence of remedial action implementation:

**Required Documentation:**
```
REMEDIAL POWERS IMPLEMENTATION:
Compliance statistics:
- Overall compliance rate: [%]
- Compliance by elected officials specifically: [%]
SOURCE: [Annual report or study with clear citation]

Implementation examples:
1. [Case name] ([Year]) - [Elected official involved]
   - Remedial action ordered: "[Direct quote of action required]"
   - Outcome: [What actually happened]
   SOURCE: [Documentation citation]

2. [Additional examples - at least 2]

Consequences for non-compliance:
"[Description of what happens if officials refuse to comply]"
SOURCE: [Legal provision or documented example]
```

### 3.3 Judicial Review or Confirmation

Document any court decisions on the binding nature of remedial actions:

**Required Documentation:**
```
JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION:
"[Direct quote from court decision on remedial powers]"
SOURCE: [Court case name, date, citation]
```

## Part 4: Citizen Accessibility

### 4.1 Direct Complaint Mechanisms

Document how citizens can file complaints:

**Required Documentation:**
```
CITIZEN COMPLAINT ACCESSIBILITY:
Legal basis for direct complaints:
"[Direct quote establishing citizen complaint right]"
SOURCE: [Law, Article/Section]

Complaint filing methods:
- [List all available methods: online, in-person, mail, etc.]
- Geographic accessibility: [Number of offices, regional coverage]
- Cost to complain: [Any fees or charges]
- Language options: [Languages complaints can be filed in]

Procedural requirements:
"[Description of any procedural requirements to file a complaint]"
SOURCE: [Procedural guidelines, citation]

Annual complaint statistics:
- Total complaints received: [Number]
- Complaints investigated: [Number/percentage]
SOURCE: [Annual report citation]
```

## Part 5: Institutional Independence

### 5.1 Constitutional/Legal Independence

Document the structural independence of the institution:

**Required Documentation:**
```
INDEPENDENCE FRAMEWORK:
Constitutional status:
"[Direct quote establishing independent status]"
SOURCE: [Constitution, Article/Section]

Appointment mechanism:
"[Direct quote describing how leadership is appointed]"
SOURCE: [Relevant provision]

Term of office and removal:
"[Direct quote on term length and removal process]"
SOURCE: [Relevant provision]

Budget autonomy:
"[Direct quote on budget arrangements]"
SOURCE: [Relevant provision]
```

### 5.2 Practical Independence Evidence

Document evidence demonstrating actual independence:

**Required Documentation:**
```
PRACTICAL INDEPENDENCE EVIDENCE:
Investigations of ruling party/government:
1. [Case where institution investigated ruling officials]
   SOURCE: [Citation]

Leadership appointment history:
[Brief analysis of whether leadership changes with political changes]
SOURCE: [Factual documentation]

Budget history:
[Evidence of stable funding regardless of political changes]
SOURCE: [Budget documents citation]

External assessments:
"[Direct quote from independent assessment of institution's independence]"
SOURCE: [Academic study, international organization report, etc.]
```

## Part 6: Comparative Analysis

Include brief comparative context to ensure consistent classification:

**Required Documentation:**
```
COMPARATIVE CONTEXT:
Similar institutions that qualified for bonus:
1. [Country + Institution name] - [Key similarities]

Similar institutions that did not qualify:
1. [Country + Institution name] - [Key differences]
```

## Part 7: Required Sources

Research must include:
1. Constitutional provisions establishing the institution
2. Organic laws/statutes governing the institution
3. Annual reports (last 5 years if available)
4. Court decisions on institutional powers (if applicable)
5. Academic or expert assessments of effectiveness
6. Media reports of major investigations
7. International organization evaluations (e.g., OECD, Transparency International)

## Quality Control Checklist

Before finalizing research, verify:
- [ ] Direct quotes provided for all key legal provisions
- [ ] At least 3 examples of investigations involving elected officials documented
- [ ] Clear evidence on binding vs. non-binding nature of remedial actions
- [ ] Specific provisions on citizen complaint mechanisms documented
- [ ] Practical independence verified through concrete examples
- [ ] All sources properly cited with specific page/article references

## Final Assessment

Based on the collected evidence, provide a clear determination:

**Required Format:**
```
ASSESSMENT CONCLUSION:
Criterion 1 (Authority): [Met/Partially Met/Not Met] - [Brief rationale]
Criterion 2 (Remedial Powers): [Binding/Non-binding/Insufficient] - [Brief rationale]
Criterion 3 (Accessibility): [Met/Not Met] - [Brief rationale]
Criterion 4 (Independence): [Met/Not Met] - [Brief rationale]

BONUS DETERMINATION:
[Qualifies for 20%/qualifies for 10%/does not qualify] for the accountability bonus based on [key determining factors].

PRIMARY DETERMINING FACTORS:
1. [Most important evidence supporting this determination]
2. [Second most important evidence]
3. [Third most important evidence]
```
