The global response to corruption, after passing through several dynamics, culminated in thernadoption in 2003 of a broad and binding international anticorruption instrument, the UnitedrnNations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). Prior to this, the African Union Conventionrnon Preventing and Combating Corruption (AUCPCC) and the United Nations Conventionrnagainst Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) were also adopted. The implementation ofrnthese international anticorruption instruments by states parties requires the involvement ofrnvarious actors. Chief among these actors are domestic anticorruption institutions like thernFederal Ethics and Anticorruption Commission of Ethiopia (FEACC). The main purpose of thisrnstudy is to examine, find gaps and look for possible explanations for why the gaps exist in therneffectiveness of anticorruption institutions in the implementation of these internationalrnanticorruption instruments by taking the activity of the FEACC as a case in point. Since anrnassessment of the effectiveness of FEACC based on the standards set by the above-mentionedrninternational anticorruption instruments ratified by Ethiopia is almost nonexistent, researchingrnfrom this angle could be beneficial and may ease the constraints of scanty literature in thisrnregard. Although the instruments encompass several broad aspects, for the sake of relevance andrnconciseness the study has bounded to base itself on the instrumentsâ€™ corruption prevention,rncriminalization and law enforcement measures. As the research mainly intends to explore thernpossible explanations for why gaps exist in the implementation of these measures, it hasrnemployed qualitative research methodology and to this effect key informant interviews andrndocument analysis were conducted.rnOn the area of corruption prevention, gaps such as absence of comprehensive and inclusivernnational anticorruption policy; lacuna in the implementation of system and working procedurernreviews made by the FEACC which aim at promoting transparency, accountability and integrityrnin various government offices and public enterprises; inadequate efforts by the FEACC inrnreviewing the justice sector and human resource management area and weak follow-up of thernimplementation of codes of conduct and failure to verify and disclose the registered assets of public officials have been identified. Limitation in delivering in-depth ethics education and in engaging the private sector particularly civil society organizations in the fight against corruption has also been observed. On the areas of criminalization and law enforcement measures, gaps were identified with respect to criminalizing, investigating and prosecutingrnforeign bribery and some offences in relation to the private sector. Although the FEACCrninvestigated and prosecuted most other offences specified in the international instruments, arnlarge number of the cases it handled in relation to these offences were petty type involving lawrankingrnofficials. The gaps in corruption prevention, criminalization and law enforcementrnactivities of the FEACC are largely caused by capacity constraints on part of the staffers of thernFEACC, inability to employ intelligence and surveillance that match with the intricate andrnhidden nature of several offences of corruption, lack of cooperation by heads of variousrninstitutions and absence of sanctioning mechanism for failure to act together, inadequate support by the government in availing the necessary resource, remuneration and staff for the FEACC as well as in maintaining the autonomy of the Commission, poor protection to whistleblowers and witnesses, limitation with respect to access to information and media freedom in the country and the prevailing