A/HRC/4/71 page 18 that becomes bogged down for many years, in the process feeding the cynicism of the public who see nothing happening to individuals they believe to be guilty. This view was echoed by another participant who noted courts becoming mired in procedural matters which result in lengthy and costly delays. The need to build the capacity of the judiciary to effectively implement anti-corruption legislation while upholding human rights was affirmed. In this regard the international community also has responsibilities. Referring to the case of the Philippines, one participant observed that thousands of human rights victims of the Marcos era have filed cases in United States courts but have yet to receive redress. He noted that the international community has an obligation to help recover the wealth amassed by dictators and stashed in the financial institutions of developed countries and called upon the United Nations to institute measures to accomplish this. Participants were briefed about the Helsinki Process’s joint initiative between Finland and Tanzania, involving 20 countries in reviewing and discussing UNCAC prior to the December meeting of the Conference of the States Parties in Jordan. Participants were also briefed on developments in Cameroon, Cambodia, Jordan, UNDP Liberia, Nepal and Nigeria. 42. Panellists took up the questions and issues raised by the participants as follows: Mr. McMillan noted the tension and need for a balance between the desires to suppress corruption and to safeguard human rights. One way to strike the balance is to have efficient and effective oversight agencies and a judicial process “that are marked by fairness and integrity”. Mr. Romaszewski concurred regarding the difficulty of finding the point of balance and suggested that it is likely to vary according to the conditions and history of each country. Mr. Matsheza observed that the instruments on human rights and law enforcement provide for such balance. He noted the problem of law enforcement agencies seeking a “blank cheque” for dealing with corruption and the need for capacity-building programmes to enable investigators and prosecutors to observe human rights while combating corruption. Mr. Saba attributed the weakness of the judicial system in addressing corruption to the decades-long process of erosion of the legitimacy of the judiciary in Latin America, where a survey revealed that approximately 85 per cent of the people do not trust the judiciary. He observed the need to strengthen the judicial system to enable it to resist the multiple pressures from the Government, the indictees, and the people who clamour for punishment. Mr. McMillan noted that there are times when those on trial use human rights claims “to cloak, avoid or delay prosecution”, requiring that each human rights claim be tested for substance. Mr. Matsheza emphasized that claims for human rights protection should not be treated as an “irritation” for law enforcement; legitimate human rights claims are a valid basis for throwing cases out. He added that the solution is for law enforcement officials to do their jobs without resorting to extraordinary measures. Echoing this position, Mr. Saba noted the importance of framing: if anti-corruption work is framed with a view that human rights are an obstacle, then the result will be a betrayal of human rights values. He maintained that “we can do both” - fight corruption and protect human rights - and cautioned against presenting them “as either or”. Mr. Saba also drew attention to the paradox of “saying that our Governments are often very corrupt and then also being willing to endow them with extraordinary powers to fight corruption”. With regard to asset recovery, Mr. Romaszewski stressed the need for transparency of banking systems and tax havens but also noted that the recent recovery of Holocaust victims’ assets indicated that it can be done. Mr. Matsheza informed participants that UNODC has developed a training module on asset recovery and will be engaged in providing technical assistance in this area.