A/HRC/44/43 assessments. Embedding human rights appears easier in some of those categories than others. For example, integrating human rights-related questions into baseline screening for potential employees and third parties (or for transactions), often on automated platforms, presents fewer challenges than embedding human rights in mergers and acquisitions or conducting operational assessments, which require greater expertise. VI. Ensuring effective remedy 57. The Guiding Principles set out that States must take appropriate steps to ensure that victims of human rights abuses have access to effective remedy. While the Guiding Principles do not elaborate on the connection with corruption, the commentary to pillar III notes that procedures for the provision of remedy should be impartial, protected from corruption and free from political or other attempts to influence the outcome, and that States should ensure that the provision of justice is not prevented by corruption of the judicial process. Institutions, judicial and non-judicial, should possess the powers, expertise and resources to provide adequate and effective remedies to victims of business-related human rights abuses that prevent, redress and deter actors from repeating abusive behaviour.97 A. Corrupt behaviour as an entry point to seeking remedy for businessrelated human rights abuses 58. States and victims should be able to use corrupt behaviour as an entry point to seek remedy for business-related human rights abuses. There have been cases in France concerning Gabon and Equatorial Guinea.98 Also, in January 2020, residents of the Democratic Republic of the Congo stepped forward as potential victims in the corruption investigation undertaken by the Serious Fraud Office of the United Kingdom into Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation, a multinational mining company.99 Such cases deserve careful review; they may present a novel path to accessing remedy for business-related human rights abuses. B. Judicial remedy 59. Judicial corruption, understood to mean any action intended to influence the impartiality and independence of judges and other actors involved in the administration of justice,100 leads to a denial of remedy for rights holders,101 and is a systemic issue that has been studied widely. An independent and incorruptible justice system is fundamental in upholding the rule of law, monitoring public institutions and ensuring access to justice.102 Article 11 (1) of the United Nations Convention against Corruption places a duty on States parties to take measures to strengthen integrity and to prevent opportunities for corruption among members of the judiciary. In cases concerning business-related human rights abuses, judges may have to interpret provisions in licences and concessions granted by a State, and contract awards following procurement processes. Having corrupt judges who are susceptible to bribes made by one of the parties to secure a favourable outcome would create a system of “zero-deterrence” impunity103 where access to judicial remedy would be effectively unavailable. 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 See A/72/162. See www.asso-sherpa.org/ill-gotten-gains-gabon#.XpOWgjhlJMs and www.assosherpa.org/equatorial-guinea-trial-casts-spotlight-on-scrappy-french-watchdog. See www.business-humanrights.org/en/drc-residents-step-forward-as-potential-victims-in-corruptioninvestigation-into-enrc-as-report-details-harm-caused-by-mine-closure. A/72/140, para. 47. Contributions from Poland, Uganda and Human Rights Watch. A/69/294, para. 41. Contribution from the International Justice Mission. 17