This chapter analyses the measures implemented by the Dominican Republic to improve transparency and access to information as key elements for public integrity. First, the chapter recommends measures to ensure access to information is overseen by a supervisory authority with functional independence and formal powers to receive complaints, evaluate refusals, and issue binding/ enforceable decisions / resolutions, supported by the mandatory use of a single access-to-information portal across the public administration. Second, the chapter explores ways to strengthen transparency through open data and digital integration, including the consolidation of existing transparency and open data platforms into a unified national portal and improving the quality, consistency, and reuse of proactively disclosed information to enhance accountability and public trust.
OECD Integrity Review of the Dominican Republic
Abstract
Fostering transparency through access to information is a cornerstone of public integrity. Transparency increases the costs of concealment and fraud associated with corrupt practices and strengthens accountability in public decision-making. By enabling individuals to access relevant information, transparency allows citizens to better understand government spending, decision-making processes, and policy outcomes, and to identify potential irregularities or raise red flags. From a behavioural perspective, transparency can also deter unethical behaviour, as the perception that actions are visible and subject to scrutiny introduces an accountability effect that makes unethical conduct more difficult to justify (OECD, 2018[1]; OECD, 2020[2]).
Access to information (ATI) encompasses the ability of individuals to seek, receive, impart, and effectively use information (OECD, 2022[3]). It includes both proactive and reactive disclosure mechanisms. Proactive disclosure refers to the systematic publication of information by public authorities and is increasingly used across OECD Member countries to provide immediate access to public information and reduce the need for formal administrative requests. Reactive disclosure, by contrast, concerns citizens’ right to request access to information that is not otherwise made publicly available.
As with other components of countries’ integrity systems, clear and robust regulations help define the data and information that public institutions are required to disclose, enabling both citizens and oversight bodies to hold authorities to account when these obligations are not fulfilled. The OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity invites countries to “encourage transparency and stakeholders’ engagement at all stages of the political process and policy cycle to promote accountability and the public interest”. Specifically, it emphasises the need to “promote transparency and an open government, including ensuring access to information and open data” (OECD, 2017[4]). Similarly, the OECD Recommendation on Open Government points to information as the foundational stepping-stone that enables meaningful stakeholder participation and emphasises the disclosure of “clear, complete, timely, reliable and relevant public sector data and information” (OECD, 2017[5]).
Over the past two decades, the Dominican Republic has taken significant steps to strengthen its transparency and access-to-information framework. The Constitution establishes transparency, accountability, free access to public information, publicity, citizen participation, objectivity, and co-ordination as fundamental principles governing the Public Administration. Law No. 200-2004 on Open Access to Public Information regulates the constitutional right of access to public information, recognised for all people, including natural and legal persons, citizens, and non-citizens. The Law and its implementing regulations incorporate the core minimum provisions commonly found in advanced systems, including a broad scope of obligated entities, procedures for requesting information, statutory deadlines, defined exemptions, and avenues for administrative and judicial review.
This framework was further reinforced by Decree No. 486-2012, which designated the Directorate General of Ethics and Government Integrity (Dirección General de Ética e Integridad Gubernamental, DIGEIG) as the body to oversee both open data policy and access to public information. The creation of the Single Portal for Requesting Access to Public Information (Portal Único de Solicitud de Acceso a la Información Pública, SAIP), a centralised digital platform through which citizens can submit access-to-information requests to public institutions, has increased the accessibility of the request process and reduced barriers for citizens.
The Dominican Republic has also advanced its open data and open government agendas. The National Open Data Policy (Política Nacional de Datos Abiertos, PNDA-RD), approved by Presidential Decree No. 103-2022 in March 2022, establishes guidelines to facilitate access to, use, reuse, and redistribution of public data, while promoting the harmonisation and publication of public datasets in open formats. Under the policy, institutions of the Executive Branch are required to proactively disclose a core set of institutional datasets in open and interoperable formats through the National Open Data Portal (https://datos.gob.do), which consolidates machine-readable datasets from multiple government entities and supports their reuse by researchers, journalists, and civil society. These datasets include information on budgets and spending, public procurement, audits, public officials and payroll, institutional performance, travel and benefits, citizen requests and participation, and other administrative and statistical records, as well as other high-value datasets required under Law No. 200-2004 (Section 3.2.1 of the National Open Data Policy). The Legislative and Judicial branches, constitutional bodies, local governments, public enterprises, and private companies managing public resources may also apply the policy’s guidelines as a reference framework for promoting open data.
The National Open Data Commission (Comisión Nacional de Datos Abiertos), an inter-institutional co-ordination body established under the National Open Data Policy and co-ordinated by the DIGEIG, supports the implementation of open data initiatives across the public administration, including the promotion of data publication, co-ordination, and reuse. Its composition brings together key public institutions, including the Ministry of the Presidency (Ministerio de la Presidencia), the former Ministry of Economy, Planning and Development (Ministerio de Economía, Planificación y Desarrollo, MEPyD), the Government Office of Information and Communication Technologies (Oficina Gubernamental de Tecnologías de la Información y Comunicación, OGTIC), the Dominican Telecommunications Institute (Instituto Dominicano de las Telecomunicaciones, INDOTEL), and the National Institute of Public Administration (Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública, INAP), as well as representatives from academia, the technology sector, and civil society organisations, although it does not currently operate as a standalone statutory body.
At the level of each public administration entity, an Access to Information Office (Oficina de Acceso a la Información Pública, OAI) and an Access to Public Information Officer (Responsable de Acceso a la Información, RAI) must be designated to lead the process of publishing open data within the institution. The OAI/RAI is responsible for ensuring that datasets are published in open, neutral, and interoperable formats and that publication practices are aligned with the provisions of the National Open Data Policy and related action plans, while also overseeing compliance with the access to information framework under Law No. 200-2004, including facilitating citizens’ requests for public information, promoting proactive disclosure, and ensuring transparency in the institution’s management of public information.
In terms of international commitments, the Dominican Republic’s participation in the Open Government Partnership (OGP), including its role as a member of the OGP Steering Committee and through its dedicated portal (https://gobiernoabierto.gob.do), has led to the co-creation of multi-stakeholder action plans with commitments on transparency, citizen participation, and technology-enabled governance. This process is co-ordinated through the Foro Multiactor para el Gobierno Abierto de la República Dominicana, a permanent dialogue space that brings together representatives from government institutions, civil society, academia, and the private sector. The country is also an active member of the Ibero-American Network on Transparency and Access to Information (Red de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información de Iberoamérica, RTA), and was elected to preside over its Directing Council for the 2024–2027 term, as well as the Ibero-American Network for the Protection of Personal Data (Red Iberoamericana de Protección de Datos Personales, RIPD).
More recently, the Dominican Republic initiated work on a National Strategy for Civic Space, built around five key pillars: creating an enabling environment for civil society; promoting citizen participation; protecting freedom of assembly, demonstration and human rights; guaranteeing access to information, freedom of the press and combating disinformation; and fostering digital civic space (OECD, 2025[6]).
Taken together, these developments reflect tangible progress in strengthening the Dominican Republic’s transparency framework. When measured against OECD standards on public information, the country’s performance is close to the OECD average for both regulatory and practical criteria. Specifically, the Dominican Republic meets 67% of the criteria related to regulations and 58% of those related to practice, compared with OECD averages of 72% and 62%, respectively (Figure 4.1).
Note: This set of indicators covers regulations and practice related to transparency of public information. The criteria are from the OECD Public Integrity Indicators’ datasets on “Regulatory framework for access to information, open data and public consultation”, “Coverage of basic functions to implement access to information and open data”, “Openness of government decision-making process” and “Proactive disclosure of datasets”.
Note: Data for 2025 or latest year available. Data not provided by Japan and Switzerland.
How to read: As measured against OECD standards on transparency and access to public information, the Dominican Republic fulfils 67% of criteria on regulation and 58% on practice, compared to the OECD average of 72% and 62%, respectively. OECD Member countries are represented by dark blue bars. OECD partner countries are represented by light blue bars. OECD, partner and global averages are represented by red bars.
Source: (OECD, 2026[7])
Nevertheless, significant scope for improvement remains. Key gaps persist, notably the absence of an “open by default” principle, the lack of an oversight body insulated from executive interference and limitations related to cost-free access, indicating further opportunities to align the regulatory framework with OECD standards on transparency and open government (Table 4.1).
Note: The criteria are from the OECD Public Integrity Indicators’ datasets on “Regulatory framework for access to information, open data and public consultation”, “Coverage of basic functions to implement access to information and open data”, “Openness of government decision-making process” and “Proactive disclosure of datasets”.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators, https://oecd-public-integrity-indicators.org/
Implementation challenges also remain. Access to information requests have been reported to be enforced selectively by certain public entities (Freedom House, 2024[8]; Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2024[9]). The absence of an independent oversight body for external appeals, as evidenced in Table 4.2, limits the impartial enforcement of access-to-information rights, leaving judicial recourse as the primary external remedy. The SAIP platform, while a significant step toward centralising requests, is not yet uniformly integrated across all public institutions, and there is limited public reporting on its usage and performance. Additionally, the government’s various transparency-related portals, remain fragmented, making it harder for citizens to locate and use information efficiently.
Note: The criteria are from the OECD Public Integrity Indicators’ datasets on “Regulatory framework for access to information, open data and public consultation”, “Coverage of basic functions to implement access to information and open data”, “Openness of government decision-making process” and “Proactive disclosure of datasets”.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators, https://oecd-public-integrity-indicators.org/
The Dominican Government is taking steps to address these gaps through the preparation of a draft Organic Law establishing a General Directorate of Integrity, Transparency and Government Ethics (Proyecto de Ley Orgánica de la Dirección General de Integridad, Transparencia y Ética Gubernamental, DIGITEG) (see also Chapter 1). The law would create a National System of Transparency and Public Integrity structured around two core pillars: transparency and integrity, with DIGITEG as its governing body. The transparency pillar would encompass the rules, principles and mechanisms aimed at promoting institutional transparency, guaranteeing free access to public information, strengthening open data, protecting personal data, and fostering open government. The draft law would empower the DIGITEG to oversee and co-ordinate access to public information, transparency and open government policies across public institutions, including supervising OAI offices, administering national transparency and open data portals, monitoring compliance with access to information obligations, and promoting standardised transparency and accountability practices throughout government.
The adoption of this law would also trigger a series of consequential legislative amendments and updates, including to Law No. 200-2004 on Free Access to Public Information and Law No. 172-2013 on Personal Data Protection, as well as other related legislation, with a view to ensuring coherence with the new framework and consolidating the institutional architecture for transparency and public integrity. Accordingly, this chapter outlines key recommendations for strengthening transparency of public information and access to information in the Dominican Republic along the following priorities:
Strengthening the legal and institutional framework for effective access to information.
Strengthening operational arrangements for access to information through digital integration, accessibility, and proactive disclosure.
An effective legal framework that clearly sets out how the right to information is to be realised forms the foundation of a robust access to information system. Core elements of access to information laws typically include the scope of the right, provisions for proactive and reactive disclosure, clearly defined exemptions and grounds for refusal, mechanisms for appeal, and the allocation of institutional responsibilities for oversight and implementation. Adequate resourcing is also critical, including investment in tools such as user-friendly portals and information management systems that facilitate the submission and processing of requests and support more timely responses (OECD, 2020[2]).
4.2.1. The Dominican Republic could consider enshrining in primary legislation the principle that government information and data are “open by default”
The principle that government data should be “open by default” is established in the National Open Data Policy. The policy defines this principle as requiring that all public data be made available in structured open formats that can be automatically processed and interpreted by electronic systems, and that the necessary measures be taken to ensure this condition from the moment the data are generated or collected (Section 1.2 of Chapter 1). It defines “public data” as any data of public interest generated or held by an entity exercising a public function or authority whose access is not restricted by law (Section 1.3 of Chapter 1). The policy also aligns its operational and implementation principles with those set out in the International Open Data Charter (Presidency of the Dominican Republic, 2022[10]).
However, this “open by default” principle is not currently enshrined in the legal framework governing access to information. Existing provisions, such as Article 11 of Law No. 200-2004, focus primarily on modalities for delivering information upon request rather than on proactive disclosure, reuse, or publication in open and machine-readable formats. While Article 3 identifies categories of information that must be made publicly available – such as budgetary data, programmes and projects, public procurement, public officials’ positions and remuneration, beneficiaries of public programmes, public debt, legal and regulatory instruments, official statistics, and regulatory frameworks governing public services –, it does not explicitly establish a general “open by default” standard applicable to all government-held information.
As set out in the OECD Recommendation on Enhancing Access to and Sharing of Data, making government-held data and information open by default should be a key part of governments’ broader open government strategies (OECD, 2021[11]). Limiting this principle to the Open Data Policy therefore provides a comparatively weaker normative basis, particularly as the policy focuses on “data”, defined as a “symbolic representation (numeric, alphabetic, algorithmic, spatial, etc.) of a quantitative or qualitative attribute or variable”, and often understood narrowly as datasets, rather than the broader concept of public information. As such, building on the existing commitment reflected in the Open Data Policy, consideration could be given to enshrining the “open by default” principle in primary legislation and extending it to all categories of public information, thereby strengthening its legal standing and ensuring a more coherent and comprehensive transparency framework.
At the OECD level, 61% of countries specify in primary legislation that government data are “open by default”, while the Dominican Republic is part of the 46% of partner countries covered by the OECD Public Integrity Indicators that do not have such a legislative requirement in place (Figure 4.2).
Note: Data for 2025 or latest year available. Data for the criterion ‘primary legislation specifies that Government data are “open by default” (except for specific cases defined in the regulatory framework)’: “Yes” represents criterion fulfilled, and “No” represents criterion not fulfilled. Data not provided by Japan and Switzerland.
Source: (OECD, 2026[7]).
In this regard, the draft Organic Law establishing the DIGITEG, currently under discussion, offers a timely opportunity to embed a clear presumption of openness in primary legislation, subject to well-defined and proportionate exceptions related to privacy, data protection, and security. Explicitly enshrining this principle would provide a strong normative foundation for proactive disclosure, data reuse, and interoperability, and would help align the legal framework more closely with OECD good practices. The examples of Costa Rica’s recent Framework Law on Access to Public Information No. 10554, adopted in 2024, and Colombia’s Constitution, are provided in Box 4.1.
Costa Rica
Costa Rica’s Framework Law No. 10554 on Access to Public Information (Ley Marco de Acceso a la Información Pública) sets out the principles governing the right of access to public information in Article 2 and explicitly establishes a presumption of openness, whereby all information is considered public unless it falls within a legally defined exception regime.
a) Principle of transparency: the condition under which all information held by entities subject to this law is presumed to be public, unless it is subject to limits relating to confidentiality, privacy, and the exceptions established in the legislation, in the Political Constitution of the Republic of Costa Rica, in international human rights instruments, and in other provisions of legal rank.
Colombia
Article 74 of Colombia’s Constitution states that “every person has a right to access public documents except in cases established by law”.
4.2.2. Law No. 200-2004 could be amended to provide clearer procedures for dealing with external appeals regarding reactive disclosure of information
Law No. 200-2004 establishes a broad scope of obligated entities and rights holders that is largely aligned with international good practice. It designates all public institutions, as well as private entities and individuals performing public functions or managing public resources, as holders of public information. The framework applies across the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, although, for the legislative and judicial branches, its application is limited to administrative activities.
The legal framework also guarantees the right of access to information to all persons, including non-nationals and legal persons, and covers all available formats of information. This is reinforced by constitutional provisions recognising the right of everyone to seek, receive, and disseminate public information (Constitution of the Dominican Republic, Articles 49 and 25), as well as by the Regulation for the Implementation of the General Law on Free Access to Public Information (Decree No. 130-2005), which explicitly recognises legal persons as information requesters, including through authorised representatives (Article 14).
Article 8 of Law No. 200-2004 requires public bodies to respond within fifteen (15) working days, with a single exceptional extension of up to ten (10) additional working days where duly justified and communicated in advance. In addition, the regulatory framework ensures that access to information is not conditional on the requester providing a justification. Article 15 of the Implementing Regulation of Law No. 200-2004 (Decree No. 130-2005) clarifies that any statement of purpose provided by the requester cannot be used as grounds for refusing a request and that invoking a simple interest is sufficient, with responsibility for the use of the information resting with the requester. Article 14 of Law No. 200-2004 provides that access is free insofar as reproduction of the information is not required; where reproduction is necessary, institutions may charge reasonable fees calculated on the basis of the cost of supplying the information.
However, despite containing many of the provisions commonly found in more advanced access to information systems, Law No. 200-2004 displays a number of weaknesses that have not been addressed since the adoption of Law No. 200-2004 in 2004, despite significant developments in access to information standards and practices over the past two decades. While the law has been implemented and operationalised through secondary instruments, most notably Decree No. 130-2005 (the implementing regulation), Decree No. 166-2025 (adopted in March 2025) and subsequent administrative standards on transparency portals, these measures have not amended the primary legislation, which has remained unchanged since its adoption in 2004. The nature of public information has evolved considerably with the digital transformation of government, the growing importance of open data, and increasing public expectations for transparency. Periodic updates to access to information legislation are therefore common practice. Across the OECD, around 70% of countries have amended their access to information laws since their initial adoption to expand or strengthen the right of access and ensure that legislative frameworks remain fit for purpose in light of these developments (OECD, 2022[3]).
In addition, several aspects of Law No. 200-2004 could be further strengthened to better align with international good practices and support the effective implementation of the right of access to information. First, concerning exceptions and refusals, international good practice suggests that all exceptions must be necessary, appropriate and proportionate. Public interest tests and harm tests are two common ways to exempt information to ensure that these are proportionate and necessary. In this regard, Article 17 of Law No. 200-2004 establishes a closed list of exemptions, including the protection of national defence, security, and international relations; public security and the effectiveness of public measures; and commercial, industrial, scientific, and financial interests, including the functioning of the banking system and the protection of fair competition in public procurement. These grounds correspond in substance to those set out in Article 3(a), (b), and (g) of the Tromsø Convention, although the Dominican Republic has not signed or ratified the Convention. Article 18 allows requests to be refused where disclosure would affect overriding private interests, notably personal privacy and intellectual property rights.
However, some exceptions are broad and loosely defined compared to international good practices, for example exception 17(b) (“where the untimely disclosure of the information could affect the success of a measure of a public nature”) and 17(l) (“information whose disclosure would put public health and safety, the environment, or the public interest in general at risk”). In addition, the law does not provide for a general harm test applicable across all exceptions, meaning that disclosure may be refused without a requirement to demonstrate a risk of actual harm to a protected interest. Nor does it establish a mandatory public interest override requiring information to be disclosed where the overall public interest outweighs the potential harm of disclosure. A limited public interest consideration applies only in relation to third-party privacy under Article 18, which allows personal data to be disclosed with the data subject’s consent or where a prevailing public interest is demonstrated, including to support an ongoing public investigation. In addition, the law does not include a severability clause and therefore does not require partial disclosure where only part of a record is subject to an exception.
In terms of appeals, Law No. 200-2004 provides for an internal review mechanism allowing applicants to challenge decisions before the higher hierarchical authority (Article 27), as well as access to judicial review where dissatisfaction persists, including appeals to the Superior Administrative Court (Tribunal Superior Administrativo, TSA) within fifteen working days (Article 28). In addition, the law guarantees the right to seek judicial protection through an Amparo action before the Administrative Contentious Court (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, TCA) in cases of refusal or undue delay, ensuring effective remedies against both denial and administrative inactivity (Article 29).
While the existence of an internal appeal mechanism, allowing requesters to challenge a refusal before the same institution that denied the original request, is consistent with good practice and is found in 85% of OECD Members responding to the Open Government Survey (OECD, 2022[3]), the framework does not provide for appeals to an independent oversight body, such as an information commission or ombudsman, in addition to the possibility to pursue judicial review. Across the OECD, 85% of countries provide for an external appeal to an independent oversight institution, with the most common mechanisms for internal and external appeals being the following:
Internal appeal: The requester can submit an internal appeal to the same institution or body that denied his/her original request for information.
External appeal to an independent oversight institution: The requester can submit an external appeal to an independent oversight institution (e.g. an information commission, ombudsman).
Judicial appeal (e.g. courts): The requester has the right to submit a judicial appeal. Some countries may require that requesters first lodge an internal or external appeal (OECD, 2022[3]).
In addition, the framework does not specify whether judicial remedies are free of charge or can be pursued without legal assistance. Finally, the grounds for external appeal are not clearly or comprehensively defined. Internal appeals are limited to cases of dissatisfaction with decisions concerning the disclosure of information, while judicial appeals may be lodged against the decision adopted through the internal appeal mechanism. This means that, for example, refusals to provide information in the requested format, instances of administrative silence or failure to meet statutory deadlines, or the charging of excessive fees, are not explicitly covered by either the internal or judicial appeal processes. While the Amparo action provides a remedy in cases where public authorities fail to provide information within the prescribed time limits, or where the higher hierarchical authority fails to decide on an appeal within the required timeframe, its scope does not fully address these additional gaps.
With regard to sanctions, the existence of proportionate and enforceable penalties for non-compliance is a critical element of effective access to information frameworks, as the absence of sanctions can create negative incentives and contribute to practices such as the overly broad application of exemptions or persistent administrative silence. In the Dominican Republic, the only provision explicitly addressing sanctions is Article 30, which establishes administrative and criminal penalties for public officials or agents who arbitrarily deny, obstruct, or prevent access to information, including imprisonment of six months to two years and disqualification from public office for five years. The inclusion of criminal sanctions reflects a comparatively robust enforcement framework.
The adoption of Decree No. 166-2025 in March 2025 further strengthened the sanctions and enforcement framework for transparency. The Decree mandates the use of the Single Access to Public Information Portal (SAIP), establishes a transparency ranking monitored by DIGEIG, and reinforces accountability by linking compliance with transparency obligations under Law No. 200-2004 to individual performance evaluations of public officials within the Executive Branch. Under Article 8, specific transparency targets, defined and monitored by DIGEIG through an information responsibility matrix, must be incorporated into performance agreements and account for 16 points of the total evaluation score, under the supervision of the Ministry of Public Administration (Ministerio de Administración Pública, MAP). Article 9 further provides that officials included in the matrix who fail to meet their responsibilities are excluded from receiving the annual extraordinary compensation, while Article 10 clarifies that non-compliance may give rise to administrative sanctions under Law No. 200-2004 and Law No. 41-2008 on the Civil Service.
However, the legal framework focuses exclusively on the individual responsibility of public officials and does not provide for institutional accountability where public authorities systematically fail to comply with their access to information obligations. In particular, it does not establish graduated administrative sanctions or corrective measures, such as compliance orders, to address persistent institutional underperformance. In addition, the Law does not provide protections for public officials who disclose information in good faith in accordance with its provisions, which may discourage compliance and proactive disclosure.
As of result of these weaknesses, Law No. 200-2004 currently ranks 128th out of 141 assessed countries in the Right to Information Rating (RTI), with a score of 58 out of a possible 130 points (Center for Law and Democracy, 2023[13]) (Figure 4.3). The ongoing discussions around the draft Organic Law establishing theDIGITEG therefore provide an excellent opportunity to close the gaps identified above and ensure that the legal and institutional framework reflects the realities and evolving practices of modern public administration. In particular, the Dominican Republic could consider further clarifying the scope and application of exceptions by introducing a general harm test and a mandatory public interest override, in line with international standards. In addition, amending the law to introduce proportionate sanctions for non-compliance and to provide good-faith protections for officials who disclose information under the ATI framework could strengthen enforcement and encourage more consistent implementation.
Note: The maximum achievable composite score is 150 and reflects a strong RTI legal framework. The global rating of RTI laws is composed of 61 indicators measuring seven dimensions: Right of access; Scope; Requesting procedures; Exceptions and refusals; Appeals; Sanctions and protection; and Promotional measures. The percentages are calculated based on the maximum possible scores by dimension and the actual RTI score obtained by the Dominican Republic.
Source: Access Info Europe (AIE) and the Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD), Right to Information Rating, https://www.rti-rating.org/
Lastly, to fully realise the benefits of the access to information framework and strengthen ownership and buy-in among both public administrations and citizens, any future amendments to the law could be developed through a participatory approach. In this regard, the Dominican Republic could consider involving a broad range of stakeholders in the process of revising the ATI Law and developing its by-laws, in order to incorporate practical insights and foster shared ownership of the reforms.
4.2.3. Oversight of Law No. 200-2004 on access to information could be entrusted to a supervisory authority with functional independence and formal powers to receive complaints, review refusals, and issue binding decisions
An important factor in implementing ATI laws is the existence of appropriate institutional arrangements for their application (OECD, 2022[3]). As the national authority responsible for access to public information, the DIGEIG has played a central and proactive role in translating legal guarantees into effective practice. In particular, the DIGEIG evaluates all institutions’ performance on a regular basis. DIGEIG's mandate includes registering institutions’ Access to Information Officers (Responsables de Libre Acceso a la Información, RAIs) in SAIP. In parallel, DIGEIG runs a comprehensive training programme, offering different types of capacity-building activities, including training for RAIs and technical staff. To date, 23 training sessions have been delivered on the new SAIP platform, both at the national and provincial levels, complemented by in-person workshops.
Under the provision of Article 3 of Decree No. 166-2025, the DIGEIG also conducts monthly evaluations across more than 227 public institutions, including ministries, autonomous bodies, and decentralised agencies of the executive branch, in the form of a Standardised Transparency Index (Índice de Transparencia Estandarizado, ITE). The ITE is a score assigned to each public institution in the Dominican Republic based on their compliance with both active transparency obligations (proactive publication on transparency portals) and passive transparency obligations (timely processing and response to access to information requests). Measured against mandatory technical standards for information and communication technologies (Normas Técnicas de Tecnologías de la Información y Comunicación) developed by the OGTIC to standardise, improve and audit how public institutions use digital technologies1, the ITE reflects alignment with mandatory transparency obligations across categories such as institutional planning, financial data, contracts, open data, citizen complaints, and more. Lastly, the DIGEIG conducts compliance inspections regularly: within the latest full calendar year, a total of 166 inspections were conducted across various public institutions. These covered key institutions such as the Senate, the Chamber of Deputies, the Superior Electoral Tribunal and the Central Bank (OECD, 2026[14]).
The DIGEIG is therefore responsible for monitoring (through annual reports) and promotion of the ATI Law, but has a more limited role in its enforcement. This is because the supervisory role of the DIGEIG faces several limitations. As emphasised in the previous section, citizens may appeal refusals or inaction, but only internally within the same agency, and then before the Administrative Court (Tribunal Superior Administrativo). While representatives from the Transparency and Open Government Directorate of the DIGEIG indicated that, in practice, the DIGEIG also operates a mediation mechanism to address disputes between requesters and institutions, the head of the DIGEIG is appointed and removed by Presidential Decree without a fixed term. This may affect the independence and continuity of its oversight functions. Moreover, the DIGEIG is not empowered to independently resolve disputes nor to impose sanctions for non-compliance with the ATI Law. The authority to sanction rests solely with the judiciary, either on its own initiative or at the request of a party who considers that an information request was unjustifiably denied, left unanswered, or inadequately addressed.
While access to information oversight bodies can take various institutional forms, their effectiveness depends on a clear regulatory mandate, adequate and sustained resources, and the authority to enforce decisions and apply sanctionsAn independent, administrative, oversight body represents better practice Across the OECD, these bodies are often information commissions, agencies, or ombudsman bodies with a specific mandate for access to information; an ombudsman with a mandate on access to information as part of a wide range of other topics (e.g. human rights, discrimination, gender); or a central government authority (Figure 4.4). In all cases, supervision is most effective when the responsible body can conduct regular inspections, issue sanctions for rule breaches, and report on their activities. The most mature ATI regimes are the ones that provide for a clear and explicit mandate in law for these bodies, and where the body’s status as independent is clearly defined, and there are clear legal provisions to safeguard this status (OECD, forthcoming[15]).
Percentage of countries that provided data in the OECD Survey on Open Government
Note: “Other” refers to countries where oversight of access to information is entrusted to institutional arrangements other than a specialised information commissioner or an ombuds institution, including authorities such as data protection authorities, anti-corruption agencies, human rights institutions, courts or other specialised public bodies, as well as countries where oversight responsibilities are shared among multiple institutions.
Source: 2020 OECD Survey on Open Government, in (OECD, 2022[3])
As Law No. 200-2004 is currently under review, and with the Draft Organic Law aimed at establishing the Directorate of Integrity, Transparency and Government Ethics (Dirección de Integridad, Transparencia y Ética Gubernamental, DIGITEG) was submitted to Congress in June 2026, the ongoing reform process presents a timely opportunity to enshrine in the legal framework an access-to-information supervisory function endowed with functional independence and clear statutory powers to receive and adjudicate complaints, review refusals, issue binding decisions, impose sanctions against non-complying institutions, and publish annual appeal statistics.
Across OECD countries, the strongest institutional arrangements for implementing access to information (ATI) laws are those that entrust oversight to an independent body with a dedicated mandate for access to information. While institutional models vary, leading systems share a number of common features that enable effective oversight, consistent interpretation of the law and robust enforcement. These include:
A dedicated and independent oversight body, such as an information commission or commissioner, with a specific statutory mandate for access to information.
Strong legal safeguards for independence, including a legal definition of the body's independent status, clear provisions protecting it from undue political influence, and transparent procedures governing the appointment and dismissal of its leadership.
Adequate institutional and financial autonomy, including an independent budget process and sufficient resources to enable the body to fulfil its mandate effectively.
Comprehensive investigative and enforcement powers, including the authority to receive and adjudicate complaints, initiate investigations into breaches of the ATI law, review refusals to disclose information, issue binding decisions, order appropriate remedies or structural corrective measures, impose sanctions for non-compliance were provided by law, and refer cases to competent authorities where necessary.
A broader oversight and advisory role, including reporting regularly to Parliament on the implementation of the ATI law, issuing guidance and recommendations, reviewing and updating proactive disclosure obligations, setting fee schedules where applicable, providing opinions or expert input in litigation, commenting on draft legislation affecting access to information, publishing thematic reports on implementation challenges, and supporting public authorities in the effective administration of access to information requests (OECD, forthcoming[15]).
Against this background, the Government of the Dominican Republic is encouraged to continue in this direction, in line with the recommendations provided in Section 1.2.1 of Chapter 1, by anchoring the autonomy and functional independence of the access-to-information oversight function in primary legislation, supported by robust safeguards against undue political interference, including merit-based appointment procedures, parliamentary involvement in the appointment of the head of the institution, fixed terms of office, clearly defined grounds for dismissal, and reporting obligations to Parliament. The example of Chile’s independent Transparency Council is provided in Box 4.2.
Independent oversight institutions: Chile’s independent Council for Transparency
Since the enactment of its Transparency and Access to Public Information Law (Law No. 20 285), Chile has had an independent body, the Consejo para la Transparencia (Council for Transparency), charged with overseeing transparency compliance and adjudicating appeals. This Council has autonomous legal status and is governed by a four-member board appointed by the President of the Republic with Senate approval, for staggered six-year terms, and members can only be removed under specific circumstances defined by law. Its independence is reinforced by its authority to issue binding decisions on access to information disputes, monitor compliance across public bodies, and apply administrative sanctions for non-compliance.
Source: OECD Secretariat, based on the OECD Public Integrity Indicators.
Effective access to information frameworks depends not only on robust legal provisions, but also on well-designed operational arrangements that enable public institutions to manage, disclose, and protect information in a timely, accessible, and user-friendly manner. Effective access also requires moving beyond the availability of information to consider whether citizens can obtain and use it in practice, including whether proactively disclosed information is up to date, understandable, accessible and provided in usable formats, and whether responses to information requests are timely and complete.
In the Dominican Republic, further strengthening the digital infrastructure underpinning access to information could help improve compliance, usability, and accountability, while reducing administrative burdens on both institutions and users. This section examines opportunities to enhance the operational delivery of access to information through greater digital integration, improved information management and protection systems, and the consolidation of existing transparency and open data platforms to support more proactive, coherent, and accessible disclosure practices.
4.3.1. The DIGEIG could further strengthen and consolidate the SAIP Platform, by ensuring full institutional uptake, improving data quality and enhancing monitoring of ATI performance
The Dominican Republic has made significant progress by establishing the Single Portal for Requesting Access to Public Information (Portal Único de Solicitud de Acceso a la Información Pública, SAIP), a centralised digital platform that enables citizens to submit access-to-information requests to public institutions. The Portal is designed to ensure traceability, clear assignment of responsibilities, compliance with deadlines, continuous improvement in response quality, and the possibility for applicants to assess their satisfaction with institutional responses. Articles 4 and 5 of Decree No. 166-2025, adopted in March 2025, strengthened the Portal by establishing it as the mandatory, centralised platform for submitting, managing, tracking, and resolving access to information requests across the Executive Branch.
According to current SAIP statistics, 376 public institutions are connected to the platform, and a new version of the Portal, featuring enhanced tracking and follow-up functionalities, was launched in October 2025. Notwithstanding DIGEIG’s sustained outreach and capacity-building efforts, a significant number of public bodies continue to receive and process access to information requests outside the SAIP, including through email, in-person submissions, or their own institutional websites. As a result, full and consistent use of the platform across the administration has yet to be achieved. Recognising that institutional uptake requires time and sustained engagement, DIGEIG is intensifying its training and technical assistance efforts to promote standardised use of the SAIP and ensure more coherent implementation of the access to information framework.
There is also room to further enhance the SAIP platform. At the time of writing, DIGEIG has developed and made publicly available a performance dashboard within the SAIP portal, presenting key indicators such as the total volume of requests, as well as the number of approved, refused and pending requests. The dashboard allows users to filter information by variables including the applicant’s gender, age and level of education; the institution receiving the request; the category of information sought; and the status of the request (e.g. completed, refused – disaggregated by grounds for refusal – pending, or under mediation). This represents an important step towards greater transparency and monitoring of the access to information system.
However, the platform does not report data on average response times, the status of appeals, appeal outcomes by institution, or the backlog of unresolved cases. The absence of these metrics limits transparency and constrains DIGEIG’s capacity to detect non-compliance or systemic delays across the public administration. Furthermore, in the statistics on types of information requested, the vast majority of requests are categorised as “other”, reflecting a structural weakness in the classification and reporting framework. This overreliance on a residual category makes it impossible to analyse demand patterns, identify priority areas, or strengthen proactive disclosure policies (Figure 4.5).
Source: SAIP (2026[16]), Estadísticas por Tipo de Información [data by type of information], https://saip.gob.do/estadisticas-por-tipo-de-informacion (accessed on 19 August 2026).
Under Commitment 1 of the Dominican Republic’s 2024-2028 Open Government Partnership (OGP) Action Plan, the government is also developing an artificial intelligence-powered digital tool to centralise and streamline access-to-information requests. This initiative aims to improve the exercise of the right to information by reducing response times, increasing user satisfaction, lowering the rate of repeated requests, and facilitating faster and more effective queries. Key features will include optimised search functions for public information and open data, promotion of dataset creation and reuse, content adaptation for easier understanding, performance analytics to inform institutional improvements, notification systems, user simulations to assess response quality, and robust evaluation metrics. By combining technological innovation with usability and accessibility improvements, the commitment seeks to modernise public information systems while strengthening transparency, citizen participation, and accountability. At the time of writing, this tool was still under development (Government of the Dominican Republic, 2024[17]).
The DIGEIG or future DIGITEG is encouraged to further enhance the SAIP platform by introducing automated workflows and standardising internal procedures for processing information requests, supported by administrative guidelines on timeframes, response formats, record-keeping, and appeal pathways (in accordance with the recommendations to strengthen the legal framework provided in Section 4.2). In addition to strengthening administrative monitoring through the SAIP and the ITE, consideration could also be given to periodically evaluating reactive transparency from the perspective of information requesters. Such assessments could examine not only compliance with statutory deadlines, but also the completeness, quality and accessibility of responses and any practical barriers encountered by users when exercising the right of access. This could help identify differences in performance across institutions and levels of government and enable capacity-building and other corrective measures to be targeted more effectively.
To improve the quality and analytical value of access-to-information statistics, the platform’s classification system could also be revised to better align with the categories established under Article 3 of the ATI law. Alternatively, information currently classified under the “other” category could be further analysed to refine and improve the classification of information, making it easier for reporting and administrative institutions (RAIs) to identify the information they are required to publish or provide, particularly where information is not subject to an “open by default” approach. Such categorisation could be embedded in the ATI law itself or in its implementing regulations to enhance clarity and consistency. These clearer categories could then be supported by staff training and guidance, and by technical adjustments to reduce overreliance on the “other” category. Strengthening this framework would enable more accurate monitoring of trends, better identification of priority areas for proactive disclosure, and more informed, evidence-based policy development.
4.3.2. The Dominican Republic could ensure transparency and integrity by applying internationally recognised models and systems to manage and protect information
Over the past two decades, both the demand for public information and the technological capacity to generate, process, and disseminate data have increased significantly worldwide. Governments now produce and manage substantially larger volumes of information than in previous periods, while public expectations for transparency and timely access to information have grown accordingly. Most ATI frameworks regulating proactive and reactive disclosures currently in force were adopted or strengthened during this period. The expansion of legal rights to information has, in turn, reinforced demand, placing increasing pressure on governments’ institutional and administrative capacity to deliver transparency effectively. At the same time, the rapid digital transformation of public administration has introduced complex and internal governance challenges. Physical archives now coexist with, and are increasingly replaced by, digital records. Public institutions have adapted to this transition at varying speeds and often through fragmented approaches, complicating document management and weakening efforts to ensure accessibility, traceability, security, and long-term preservation (OECD, 2022[3]).
Ultimately, effective compliance with transparency and ATI legislation depends on the quality, reliability, and accessibility of public records. Where documents are not organised under a common and recognised framework, public entities may struggle to identify information subject to proactive publication or disclosure upon request. This can hinder compliance with statutory deadlines and weaken public institutions’ capacity to fulfil their legal obligations. Inadequate records management may also undermine the verification of information authenticity and integrity, potentially affecting third-party rights and reducing administrative accountability. As such, robust standards for records production and management underpin the success of an ATI regime (Lemieux and Trapnell, 2016[18]; OECD, forthcoming[15]).
The Dominican Republic is no exception to this dynamic. The government does not yet operate under a unified and standardised records management framework applied consistently across the public administration that would facilitate the systematic organisation of public records and comprehensive data processing. Interviews conducted by the OECD with relevant stakeholders and central oversight bodies confirmed that public entities in the Dominican Republic frequently encounter difficulties in accessing, organising and processing their own information, including complaint files, investigative records, and statistical data related to their activities. Where records management frameworks are weak, open data and access-to-information systems often face difficulties in classification, traceability, and timely disclosure. In addition, increasing volumes of citizen requests further heighten institutional pressure to respond within statutory timeframes. As a result, bodies responsible for internal and external audits, complaint handling, investigations, and accountability are likely to face significant obstacles in fulfilling their mandates, even where adequate legal authority exists.
These findings underscore the need for an effective record management system, which will create the necessary foundation for effective implementation of open data metadata standards. Leading ATI frameworks provide for centrally established records management standards that are implemented across public bodies, with training, monitoring and enforcement mechanisms to ensure consistent compliance (OECD, forthcoming[15]). A records management system (RMS) focuses on the systematic organisation and lifecycle management of documents to enhance efficiency, accountability, and legal compliance. Effective RMS implementation enables organisations to structure administrative documentation in a consistent and coherent manner, thereby streamlining service delivery and facilitating procedures that would otherwise require significant time and resources. In the public sector, such systems are particularly important given the growing volume and complexity information processed by public entities. International standards such as ISO 15489 on records management provide recognised principles and guidelines for ensuring that records remain authentic, reliable and usable in both physical and digital formats. Adoption of such standards could support the Dominican Republic in establishing coherent and interoperable records governance models across government.
In parallel, strengthened information governance must incorporate robust data protection safeguards. Law No. 172-2013 on the Protection of Personal Data, regulates the processing and storage of personal data in public and private databases. However, public integrity systems, including reporting channels, investigative processes and sanctioning mechanisms, require particularly high levels of protection due to the sensitivity of the information involved. Reporting mechanisms collect information related to alleged offenders, collaborators, witnesses, and whistleblowers. Investigation processes generate evidentiary records and personal data concerning victims and individuals potentially involved in misconduct. Such information is highly sensitive, and its disclosure to unauthorised parties could compromise reports or investigations and jeopardise the employment, safety, or security of whistleblowers, investigators, and witnesses.
While a robust RMS contributes to information protection through structured classification, traceability, access controls and lifecycle management, sensitive contexts require complementary safeguards consistent with a comprehensive information security management framework. Such a framework establishes policies, procedures and technical controls to protect an organisation’s information assets, both physical and digital, against unauthorised access, misuse, alteration, or destruction. Information assets include any resource that holds value for an organisation and therefore requires protection, such as data (in digital or other formats), software, hardware (including servers), databases, documents, and institutional knowledge held by staff. The overarching objective of these measures is to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information.
The most widely recognised international standard in this area is ISO 27001, which specifies the requirements for an Information Security Management System (ISMS). This standard provides a comprehensive framework applicable to organisations of all sizes and sectors, public and private, for protecting sensitive information assets, managing cybersecurity risks, and complying with legal and good practice requirements. It also sets out guidance for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continuously improving an ISMS. Adoption of ISO 27001 is particularly recommended for organisations that manage high-value or sensitive information assets such as integrity-related data. The Dominican Republic could therefore adopt compatible and complementary models that both strengthen transparency, information management, and access to public information, and ensure the effective protection of sensitive data, including information related to public integrity.
4.3.3. The Dominican Republic could centralise existing open data platforms into a unified National Transparency Platform
In the Dominican Republic, the need to proactively disclose information has been enshrined in the ATI law (Article 3). This approach aligns with practices across most OECD countries, where legal frameworks typically identify specific categories of information that public authorities must publish proactively. The country currently manages its transparency and open government ecosystem through several digital platforms. These include the SAIP portal for submitting access to information requests (https://saip.gob.do), the Open Government Partnership (OGP) portal (https://gobiernoabierto.gob.do), which outlines national open government commitments and participation mechanisms, the Open Data Portal (https://datos.gob.do) as well as institutional transparency websites maintained separately by each ministry or agency (e.g. transparencia.pgr.gob.do) (Table 4.3). The DIGEIG, through its Resolution No. 002-2021, established standardisation policies for these transparency portals, with the objective of ensuring the broadest possible access to public information in a standardised manner and in open, reusable formats.
In addition, the Open Data Policy introduced a metadata specification aligned with the Regional Metadata Profile (RMP) developed by the Open Data Working Group of the GEALC Network of the Organization of American States (OAS), in which the Dominican Republic participates. The RMP provides a harmonised framework for describing and cataloguing datasets across open data portals, thereby supporting interoperability and consistency in open data publication. The OGTIC supports implementation of the policy by advising on technical standards, ensuring system interoperability, and maintaining the National Open Data Portal. Public institutions are required to publish compliant and up-to-date datasets on the Portal, while retaining the possibility of publication on their own websites, and to ensure that data are released under open licences permitting unrestricted use, reuse and distribution. Compliance with these licensing provisions is overseen by DIGEIG, with technical support from OGTIC.
Source: OECD Secretariat
While each platform serves an important purpose, they function independently, without cross-navigation, data integration, or centralised performance monitoring. This fragmentation reduces accessibility and usability for citizens and limits the potential of transparency as a tool for accountability and civic engagement. Users are required to navigate multiple websites to obtain information on access-to-information requests, proactive disclosures, datasets, or participation opportunities, often encountering inconsistent formats and incomplete or dispersed information. For example, although DIGEIG conducts monthly Índice de Transparencia Estandarizado (ITE) assessments across public institutions, the results are not published in a consistent or centralised manner. In practice, only DIGEIG’s own score is systematically available on its transparency portal, while results for other institutions are scattered across PDFs, annual Memoria Institucional reports, or isolated press releases. This limits public oversight and comparative benchmarking, making it difficult to track compliance trends or performance over time. Consolidating and systematising access to these evaluations would strengthen accountability and incentivise performance improvements across the administration.
The draft Organic Law establishing the General Directorate of Integrity, Transparency and Government Ethics (DIGITEG) could help address part of this fragmentation by formally designating DIGITEG as the body responsible for administering the Single Portal for Requests for Access to Public Information (SAIP), the Single Transparency Portal, the National Open Data Portal, and the National Open Government Portal. In addition, DIGITEG would be responsible for regulating the publication, use, and reuse of public data in open formats, co-ordinating the National Open Data Commission, promoting open government, implementing Open Government and Open Data action plans, and monitoring compliance with transparency publication standards across institutional portals (Article 18 of the draft Law).
Building on this legal framework, the Dominican Republic could further simplify and strengthen this architecture and improve access. While the Open Government Partnership (OGP) portal could remain institutionally distinct, it may be appropriately linked to the access to information framework through the proactive publication of Open Government Partnership National Action Plans as part of the broader set of proactively disclosed information. For the other government websites, the Dominican government could develop a one-stop-shop portal that integrates existing platforms and moves towards an open government ecosystem. This national transparency portal would serve as a central hub and allow users to: (i) submit and track access to information requests, (ii) consult real-time data on institutional compliance with the ITE (iii) navigate and compare institutional transparency content across ministries and public bodies, (iv) access and reuse datasets from the open data portal, and (v) monitor progress on Open Government Action Plan commitments and easily access public consultation pages. The portal could build upon the existing SAIP and datos.gob.do architecture, with additional modules and interoperability layers added over time.
While governments across the OECD have different approaches to the disclosure of information, it is common practice to centralise publication on a single portal that also serves as an open data platform. Regardless of the model adopted, the priority should be ensuring the accessibility and usability of these tools so that all citizens can easily locate and use available information. Examples include Canada’s Open Government Portal and Brazil’s Transparency Portal, shown in Figure 4.6.
Source: Brazil : https://portaldatransparencia.gov.br/; Canada: https://open.canada.ca/en
Strengthening the legal and institutional framework for effective access to information
The Dominican Republic could consider enshrining in primary legislation the principle that government information and data are “open by default”.
Law No. 200-2004 could be amended to provide clearer procedures for dealing with external appeals regarding reactive disclosure of information.
Oversight of Law No. 200-2004 on access to information could be entrusted to a supervisory authority with functional independence and formal powers to receive complaints, review refusals, and issue binding decisions.
Strengthening operational arrangements for access to information thought digital integration, accessibility, and proactive disclosure
The DIGEIG could further strengthen and consolidate the SAIP Platform, by ensuring full institutional uptake, improving data quality and enhancing monitoring of ATI performance.
The Dominican Republic could ensure transparency and integrity by applying internationally recognised models and systems to manage and protect information.
The Dominican Republic could centralise existing open data platforms into a unified National Transparency Platform.
References
[9] Bertelsmann Stiftung (2024), Dominican Republic Country Report 2024, https://bti-project.org/fileadmin/api/content/en/downloads/reports/country_report_2024_DOM.pdf.
[13] Center for Law and Democracy (2023), Global Right to Information Rating, https://www.rti-rating.org.
[12] Costa Rican Legal Information System (2024), Ley Marco de Acceso a la Información Pública, No. 10554, https://pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_texto_completo.aspx?param1=NRTC&nValor1=1&nValor2=103157&nValor3=143061&strTipM=TC.
[8] Freedom House (2024), Dominican Republic Country Report, https://freedomhouse.org/country/dominican-republic/freedom-world/2024.
[17] Government of the Dominican Republic (2024), VI Plan De Acción De La República Dominicana Ante La Alianza Para El Gobierno Abierto 2024-2028, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Dominican-Republic_Action-Plan_2024-2028_ES.pdf.
[18] Lemieux, V. and S. Trapnell (2016), Public Access to Information for Development: A Guide to the Effective Implementation of Right to Information Laws, World Bank, http://hdl.handle.net/10986/24578 (accessed on 28 August 2025).
[14] OECD (2026), Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026. Country Note: Dominican Republic, OECD, Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/anti-corruption-and-integrity-outlook-2026_0c8910f8-en/dominican-republic_e51f13f9-en.html.
[7] OECD (2026), Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026: Harnessing the Integrity Advantage, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/16708b78-en.
[6] OECD (2025), “Reinforcing civic space in Latin America and the Caribbean”, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 70, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4b3def3a-en.
[3] OECD (2022), The Protection and Promotion of Civic Space: Strengthening Alignment with International Standards and Guidance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d234e975-en.
[11] OECD (2021), OECD Recommendation on Enhancing Access to and Sharing of Data, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/access-to-public-research-data-toolkit_a12e8998-en/oecd-recommendation-on-enhancing-access-to-and-sharing-of-data-2021_cd69b13a-en.html (accessed on 22 January 2026).
[2] OECD (2020), OECD Public Integrity Handbook, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ac8ed8e8-en.
[1] OECD (2018), Behavioural Insights for Public Integrity: Harnessing the Human Factor to Counter Corruption, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264297067-en.
[5] OECD (2017), “Recommendation of the Council on Open Government”, OECD Legal Instruments, OECD/LEGAL/0438, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0438.
[4] OECD (2017), “Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity”, OECD Legal Instruments, OECD/LEGAL/0435, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/gov/ethics/OECD-Recommendation-Public-Integrity.pdf.
[15] OECD (forthcoming), The OECD Maturity Model for Access to Information – Evaluating Policies and Practices for Meaningful Transparency.
[10] Presidency of the Dominican Republic (2022), Política Nacional de Datos Abiertos de la República Dominicana (PNDA-RD), https://datos.gob.do/pdf/20220608-politica.pdf.
[16] SAIP (2026), Estadísticas por Tipo de Información, Portal Único de Solicitud de Acceso a la Información Pública (SAIP), Dirección General de Ética e Integridad Gubernamental (DIGEIG), https://saip.gob.do/informacion (accessed on 19 August 2026).
← 1. The NORTIC standards (Normas Técnicas de Tecnologías de la Información y Comunicación), developed by the OGTIC (Oficina Gubernamental de Tecnologías de la Información y Comunicación), establish mandatory ICT rules for public institutions. The NORTIC A-series (2014, 2021) sets core requirements for digital governance, including general ICT implementation (A1:2014), government web portals and transparency (A2:2021), open data publication (A3:2014), and systems interoperability (A4:2014). The NORTIC E1-2022 standard specifically regulates the management of official government social media accounts, covering organisational responsibilities, security, content management, citizen engagement, and crisis communication.