valuing of Traditional Authorities which indeed they are those who guarantee social peace in rural communities. Objective 6: To Fight Corruption The APR Panel recommended a vigorous condemnation of cases of “big corruption” (i); publication of declaration of asserts of senior State Servants (ii); increase of capacity of the Administrative Tribunal to oversee the declarations of asserts (iii); approve rules of ethics to regulate business of senior public servants (iv); and adopt the AU definition on corruptions specifically namely, the AU Convention Against Corruption and adhere to the SADC Protocol Against Corruption (v). 65. In relation to the APR Panel´s recommendation for a vigorous condemnation of cases of “big corruption”, in 2010 the Government submitted to the Parliament an “Anti-Corruption legislative package”, which contains a set of proposals of new laws and other for the review of anticorruption legislation. Some of the instruments have already been passed, namely: Revision of Laws of the Prosecuting Council and the Organic Statute of Magistrates of Prosecuting Council, regulation on Public Works, Supply of Goods and Service Rendering to the State; the Law on Public Integrity and Protection of Victims, Denouncers, Testimonies and other judicial and Law on Prevention of Money Laundry. 66. To complete the package, and at the time of writing this report, it lacked the approval of the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure submitted to Parliament, which makes some of the already approved laws impossible to apply due to their relationship with these two remaining laws. Note that the laws contained in the anti-corruption package, aimed at strengthening the mechanisms to fight corruption, criminalize illicit enrichment and trafficking of influences behaviours that hitherto did not constitute a crime in Mozambique. 67. Therefore, we cannot yet say that the fight against corruption in all its fullness is effective without the Laws of the package are all approved and in force. Nevertheless, under the concerted efforts of the administration of justice, senior officers, employees and agents of the State in 2011, at various levels and in various institutions, were tried and convicted of corruption related cases such as trafficking of influence and abuse of institutional funds. 68. For its part, the Supreme Court said that 2010 through October 2011 were 12 disciplinary proceedings against judges. Two of the cases were dismissed for lack of evidence, two were ongoing, and the remaining eight cases resulted in penalties ranging from an official warning to dismissal10 69. With regards do the recommendation of the APR Panel on the need to publish the asset declarations of high official of the State, increase the capacity of the Administrative Court (TA) to oversee the declarations and approval of rules of ethics to regulate 10 Mozambique – Report on Human Rights – 2011, USA Embassy, Maputo. 30