In a self-evaluation process, a government is generally given a questionnaire and asked to provide its own assessment of how it is doing in complying with convention requirements. While this can provide very useful information, the drawback is that the government may not be sufficiently self-critical or may try to make itself look better than it is. Thus the information may not be reliable.

In an expert review, government performance is reviewed by an expert or a panel of experts sufficiently knowledgeable about national laws and institutions and the convention at hand. The benefits of the process include independence of assessors and their proficiency in the topic, both of which can lead to fair and hard-hitting results. However, it is precisely because of these factors that governments may be reluctant to cooperate, or may choose to reject the findings of the expert review. The adversarial nature of the process may not lead to actual changes in state implementation.

In a mutual evaluation, government representatives evaluate one another on their convention performance. . In existing monitoring systems for the Council of Europe, OAS and OECD Conventions, the examination is conducted on a non-adversarial basis, relying heavily on mutual trust among the participating states. The Secretariat of the responsible organisation often plays an important role in supporting or stimulating the monitoring. The process brings pressure to bear through a mix of formal recommendations and informal dialogue among the reviewed countries. It may also include public scrutiny, comparisons and rankings. For the review process to have maximum impact, at least regarding anti-corruption conventions, access to information should be provided to the public, thereby adding public pressure to the peer pressure.

There are other possible forms of review of country performance in an intergovernmental framework, including data collection and reporting (including self evaluation), independent fact-finding missions; and dispute settlement proceedings. However, peer review, when well run, is a highly effective method of bringing both peer and public pressure to bear for implementation.

A number of intergovernmental monitoring systems currently in place (OAS, OECD, GRECO), use the “peer review” model. Their common elements include:

• Monitoring body composed of government representatives
• Secretariat to the monitoring body provided by the organisation that hosted preparation of the convention
• Cycle of reviews focussing in successive phases on different parts of the convention or different aspects of implementation
• Questionnaire about performance sent to national government under review for self-evaluation purposes
• Written self-evaluation report by national government; in the OAS system these are published subject to government agreement
• Interviews of national government representatives; in the OECD Phase 2 and GRECO systems these are done by country visits
• Interviews of and written submissions by other entities, such as civil society and private sector organisations
• Monitoring body's country report prepared by a few government representatives and/or the secretariat to the monitoring body, including recommendations for improvements
• Discussion of the country report with the individual government, including during a meeting with representatives of the monitoring body
• Publication of the country report, with recommendations; subject to government’s agreement in the OAS and GRECO systems
• Follow-up on recommendations by the review body