A/HRC/4/71 page 17 39. Mr. Matsheza began by identifying ways in which corruption is the outcome of State practices: the politicization of anti-corruption measures by government officials who level false charges against their predecessors or rivals; law enforcement agents who seek and then abuse special investigation powers. Mr. Matsheza then reviewed UNCAC for weaknesses that might create a potential for human rights abuses and concluded that its provisions provide for human rights protections. Mr. Matsheza continued, however, that UNCAC is considerably more complex than most human rights treaties, making it difficult for States to understand their obligations, to recognize that anti-corruption and human rights are not mutually exclusive, and to implement its provisions. He added that since the Convention came into force, UNODC has been inundated with requests for technical support in a variety of areas and that the requests indicated that some Member States are seeking quick fixes, while others are attempting to do too much in too short a time without developing necessary oversight and supervisory mechanisms. Mr. Matsheza cautioned that hastily developed legislation and national strategies have the potential to provide loopholes that could lead to human rights violations. He concluded by noting that UNODC is aware of these potential pitfalls and is developing a legislative and technical guide to assist Member States to unpack UNCAC’s requirements. 40. Roberto Saba, Executive Director, Association for Civil Rights, acting as an expert, cautioned that anti-corruption measures that undermine the rule of law and violate human rights can be counterproductive. Although Governments and civil society complain about human rights and civil rights protections limiting anti-corruption policies, Mr. Saba believes that some of the best tools for fighting corruption are found in these very protections. By nature, corruption occurs in secret and while the measures used to penetrate that secrecy (e.g.: surveillance, wire-tapping) arguably inherently violate human rights, more often they do so because they are selectively applied, entailing discrimination and profiling. Mr. Saba identified four rights violations that are likely to be involved: (a) freedom of expression (of critics); (b) freedom of information (held by Government); (c) freedom from State interference in private life; and (d) due process of law. He contended that although they may be effective against corruption, in the long run even “minor” restrictions of rights can subvert the rule of law and, as a result, efforts to eliminate corruption. As such, disregard for rights in the name of combating corruption is both morally and strategically wrong. Drawing from Argentina’s experience, Mr. Saba noted the significance of fair trials in the country’s transition to democratic rule in 1983. By holding trials widely recognized as just, the Government demonstrated to the people that the rule of law had been re-established and would apply to everyone. This was vital as the selective application of law is the essence of corruption. Moreover, to do otherwise undermines the moral authority, credibility and effectiveness of the fight against corruption, and provides to those who commit corrupt acts the opportunity to present themselves as victims of discrimination and persecution. 41. The discussion that followed affirmed that corruption compromised human rights. The appropriation of public money impairs a country’s development and welfare and, as a result, the human rights of its citizens. However, participants expressed the need to protect human rights in the course of combating corruption. One participant emphasized the need to prevent the victimization of innocent people via entrapment, surveillance and other special investigative techniques. Another participant commented that although UNCAC addressed this issue there was a need for detailed guidelines on how to protect human rights while working against corruption. A related point was raised regarding the implications of a weak judiciary that is poor at achieving a balance between protecting the rights of the accused and carrying out justice, and