In 2019, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) published a transcendental report analyzing in depth the link between corruption and human rights. The central conclusion is strong and clear: corruption violates human rights.
The Link Between the Fight Against Corruption and the Protection of Human Rights
Corruption and human rights violations are not identical issues, yet they often occur together. This interrelationship is increasingly reflected in the academic debate on both issues.
In 2021 and 2023, the UN Human Rights Council adopted two resolutions on the negative impact of corruption on human rights. The 2023 resolution explicitly highlights anti-corruption measures that can serve as tools for the protection of human rights and calls for greater cooperation between the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).
OHCHR has designated a focal point to address the relationship between corruption and human rights and has encouraged more of its country offices to work with civil society in the country concerned. In addition, it is currently organizing regional workshops in Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Europe to deepen cooperation with civil society organizations. This initiative aims to break down the silos that still characterize the work of anti-corruption organizations on the one hand and human rights organizations on the other. In any case, the synergies resulting from the existing links between the two movements could be further reinforced. DPLF and other non-governmental organizations are increasingly working to strengthen these links.
There are several different types of responsibility arising from corruption: it may be the international responsibility of the State, or individual responsibility of a political or legal nature in the criminal, civil or administrative areas. As a result, there are diverse and specialized mechanisms and instruments to combat the scourge. Moreover, the perspectives of the organizations involved in the problem can be very different.
Different Perspectives
Criminal codes, for example, traditionally focus more on investigating and punishing the accused, while the human rights perspective focuses more on the victims of corrupt acts and the possibilities for them and non-governmental organizations to participate in litigation. In this context, a certain openness in the judicial systems of several countries towards citizen participation in judicial systems can be observed recently.
For example, in Spain, the law allows citizens and legal entities to participate in criminal proceedings through the so-called “popular accusation”. In the Dominican Republic, Article 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure grants every citizen the right to participate in the application of the law under the conditions established in the code. Specifically, Article 85(III) of that Code states that:
“In punishable acts that affect collective or diffuse interests […], associations, foundations and other entities may be admitted as plaintiffs, provided that the purpose of the group is directly related to those interests and that they have been covered prior to the act. In punishable acts committed by public officials, in the exercise of their functions or on the occasion thereof, and in human rights violations, any person may become a plaintiff.”
In Honduras, Article 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the participation of any person, natural or legal, in private actions against public officials who, in the exercise of their duties, have violated human rights. Thus, for example, the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH) was part of the criminal proceedings for corruption initiated after the assassination of Berta Cáceres, the director of the organization. Although the courts initially refused, the legal figure of amicus curiae that was used in the case played an important role in reversing this decision.
On the other hand, the criminal prosecution of corruption usually has a focus on individual cases; a systematic approach is generally lacking, which makes it difficult to combat criminal structures, especially in cases of grand corruption. In this context, the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG, 2006-2019) did a great job, acting with a systematic approach that linked corruption, human rights and organized crime, including the reform of the corresponding laws. Although corruption and organized crime are different phenomena, in many cases they occur together.
The Challenge of Legal Causality
In judicial proceedings, a crucial aspect is demonstrating the causality between the corrupt act and the violation of human rights, that is, the damage from a legal point of view. Causality is also relevant to the issue of reparations for damages suffered by the victims. This is a legal issue that is often quite complex. Therefore, in many cases it is also necessary to consider extrajudicial actions that do not depend so much on strict legal causality.
Judicial Systems Observatories
Legal observatories can play a very important role. The great challenge in this work is in the verification and assessment of information. Not only information but also misinformation can be enormous. It requires great efforts and in-depth knowledge of the subject matter relevant to specific cases. Artificial intelligence can help in certain situations. Given the limited resources of observer organizations, it is necessary to have a citizen monitoring strategy, in which the priorities of observation and the methodologies to be used are determined.
In this context, decisions must be made on what specific issues will be investigated, how to do so, and how to use the findings–whether through an information campaign for the public, targeted denunciations of particularly significant corrupt acts, or a focus on victim’s interest or on the type of defendants. Generally, civil society organizations need strong messages that highlight the incidence of corruption. As mentioned above, in some countries and situations it is possible for civil society organizations to act as an adjuvant to the Prosecutor Office in criminal prosecutions for corruption and other crimes.
In the framework of the OAS Inter-American Convention against Corruption, a follow-up mechanism (MESICIC) was established to monitor implementation. The mechanism reports to the Conferences of the States Parties to the Convention. At the MESISIC technical level, subject matter experts meet once or twice a year. Globally, the UNCAC Coalition brings together nearly 400 civil society organizations in more than 120 countries to monitor the implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption.
Breaking Down Silos to Integrate Human Rights into the Fight Against Corruption
Organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund should integrate the human rights perspective more explicitly into their project evaluation and monitoring mechanisms.
The OHCHR and the United Nations Human Rights Council have different instruments and mechanisms for observing and promoting human rights, including the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), treaty body mechanisms, on-site visits, reports and procedures related to individual complaints. It would be valuable to produce a concise report describing the complex system that integrates these mechanisms so that civil society organizations focused on anti-corruption or human rights can more easily assess options for collaboration.
In recent years, some UPRs have taken a more determined and in-depth look at the impact of corruption on human rights. In different communities of practice, anti-corruption and human rights engagement are beginning to work more holistically with a multidisciplinary approach. The silos between these two fields–equally fundamental to a just society–are beginning to be broken down.
Photo Credit: Designed by Freepik