Despite the cautious wording of the standard on preventive 1. Standards of conduct for the correct, honorable, and measures, which included a strong rule of safeguard for states, proper fulfillment of public functions. These standards over time this provision has gradually acquired, as a result of its shall be intended to prevent conflicts of interest and interpretation and throughout its intergovernmental monitoring, mandate the proper conservation and use of resources a broader and deeper content. The Follow-up Mechanism for entrusted to government officials in the performance of the Implementation of the Inter-American Convention against their functions. (…) Such measures should help preserve Corruption (MESICIC), created in 2001 in follow-up on the the public’s confidence in the integrity of public servants Third Summit of the Americas (Quebec 2001), was gradually and government processes. establishing the scope of these provisions throughout its many rounds of review, which turned out to be in agreement with, and receptive of, the visions and frameworks on reform and integrity 2. Mechanisms to enforce these standards of conduct. in the civil service established over the past two decades in the Hemisphere. This aspect shall be reflected in the next section. 3. Instruction to government personnel to ensure proper To conclude, it is important to highlight the commitment made understanding of their responsibilities and the ethical rules by the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean in that governing their activities. (…) matter as reflected in the resolutions of the OAS General Assembly on Strengthening Democracy, in its section “Public Management Strengthening and Innovation in the Americas” 5. Systems of government procurement and procurement where the countries pledge to promote codes of conduct with of goods and services that assure the openness, equity high standards of ethics, probity, transparency, and integrity and efficiency of such systems. (…) and to support efforts of awareness-raising and training in these topics, taking as a reference the recommendations contained in the “Guidelines for the Management of Policies for Probity in the 12. The study of further preventive measures that take into Public Administrations of the Americas.” account the relationship between equitable compensation and probity in public service.” In connection with these provisions, it is important to stress that, from the standpoint of subjective actions, the IACAC set forth the binding elements for understanding what it meant by public function and civil servant, providing a broad-based definition. By public function it meant “any temporary or permanent, paid or honorary activity, performed by a natural person in the name of the State or in the service of the State or its institutions, at any level of its hierarchy.” It also indicated that it viewed the terms “public official,” “government official,” or “public servant” as synonymous, in the understanding that they meant “any official or employee of the State or its agencies, including those who have been selected, appointed, or elected to perform activities or functions in the name of the State or in the service of the State, at any level of its hierarchy.” From that wide-ranging standpoint, all kinds of activities carried out by a natural person on behalf of or in the service of the state and its agencies are subject to international obligations, which are applicable to any authority or employee of the state or its agencies, regardless of the origin of the relationship or hierarchy. Cultivating a culture of integrity in the civil service in times of crisis 19