A/HRC/19/42 whether the public treasury of the jurisdiction where the briber is head-quartered or lists its shares is the rightful destination for such funds. Neither the enforcement agency nor the society it represents has been the prior owner of such assets. On the contrary, in most cases of procurement of public goods and services, where foreign bribery usually takes place, it is the society where the contract was awarded who suffers from the consequences of corruption. 61. Pursuant to the United Nations Convention against Corruption, in foreign bribery cases, the State party should return the confiscated assets when the requesting State party reasonably establishes its prior ownership or when the requested State party recognizes damage as a basis for return. Foreign bribery usually takes place in the context of public procurement contracts. The bribe may be a form of reducing fair competition in the tender, overpricing the contract and arranging for underperformance of some services. In each case, the question of prior ownership and compensation should be open to discussion. 62. As a consequence, it is consistent with article 57, paragraph 3 (b), of the United Nations Convention against Corruption to require jurisdictions enforcing the Convention on Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. This is especially true when negotiating and settling cases, to include a procedure directed to allow victim countries to argue their prior ownership and, if successful, provide for the return of the disgorged profits to the country of origin. Given the obstacles to mutual legal assistance and the successful alternative ways to recover proceeds of corruption developed by the jurisdictions enforcing the Convention on Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, this solution is consistent with the objectives and purposes of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (art. 1). This procedure would further be enhanced if the recipient countries made the processes public, thus allowing for the human rights-based approach principle of participation to play a role, especially given the different interests that society and public officials of the country of origin may have. IV. Recommendations 63. In order to diminish the negative impact of the non-repatriation of funds of illicit origin to the country of origin on the enjoyment of human rights, especially on economic, social and cultural rights, the following measures are recommended: (a) All stages of the asset-recovery process should be understood as comprising mutual responsibilities of States, which should make every effort to achieve the return of funds of illicit origin to the countries of origin. Such efforts must be in line with international human rights law for the benefit of societies affected by corruption and should include: (i) Applying the human rights principles of accountability, transparency and participation in order to improve prevention and detection procedures at the countries of origin and the fair administration of justice; (ii) Affirming States’ obligation to investigate and prosecute corruption, and strengthening criminal proceedings directed at freezing or restraining funds of illicit origin at both countries of origin and recipient countries; (iii) Lowering the barriers that recipient countries impose on requiring jurisdictions at the tracing stage, especially taking into account the risks of dissipation of funds; and 16