A/HRC/19/42 51. Mandatory provisions for repatriation follow the principle of prior ownership (ownership at the time of the offence).49 According to article 57, paragraph 3 ,of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, the return of proceeds of embezzlement of public funds or of laundering of embezzled public funds – where prior ownership of the victim state is assumed – is mandatory, provided that property has been (a) confiscated, (b) this has been done at the request of the victim country and that (c) it was done on the basis of a final judgement in the requesting State party, a requirement that can be waived by the requested State party. 52. By contrast, return of proceeds of any other offence covered by the Convention against Corruption under both the mandatory and non-mandatory provisions, is conditioned by the requesting party’s reasonable establishment of its prior ownership of such confiscated property. When this condition cannot be met, return is still possible, although not mandatory, if the requested State party is able to recognize damage to the requesting State party. In all other cases, State parties are required to give priority consideration to returning confiscated property to the requesting State party, returning such property to its prior legitimate owners or compensating the victims of the crime (art. 57, para. 3 (c)). 53. Lastly, article 57, paragraph 5, establishes that, where appropriate, States Parties may also give special consideration to concluding agreements or mutually acceptable arrangements, on a case-by-case basis, for the final disposal of confiscated property. 54. The more successful these procedures are in returning proceeds of corruption to their countries of origin, the more resources States will have for complying with their duties to respect, protect, and fulfil human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, should the repatriated funds be spent in line with the human rights-based approach. 55. An example in this direction, going even beyond conventional requirements, is provided by the Swiss Restitution of Illicit Assets Act. This piece of legislation provides for the autonomous freezing, forfeiture and restitution of the assets of politically exposed persons in cases where a request for mutual legal assistance fails due to the impossibility of the requesting State to meet the standards required by the Swiss legislation. In such cases, the act allows Swiss courts to presume the illicit nature of the assets, provided that the patrimony of the politically exposed person is clearly disproportionate to its legal sources of income and that the degree of corruption of the State or of such person is notoriously high. In those cases, if the politically exposed person is unable to prove the legal acquisition of the assets, these will be confiscated and returned to the country of origin for investments in programmes directed at improving the living conditions of the population, strengthening the rule of law, and/or combating impunity. 56. Another important development is the recommendation that countries engage in a broader international policy debate about how assets-repatriation can be incorporated into the settlement agreements achieved in foreign bribery cases under the legislation implementing the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.50 57. As mentioned in paragraph 51 above, the rules governing the return of assets to the country of origin require that the assets had been confiscated at the request of the victim country. In other words, if confiscation did not occur at the request of the victim country or if the proceeds of corruption were recovered through a legal mechanism other than 49 50 14 A/58/422/Add.1, para. 66. Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Stolen Asset Recovery, Meeting Accra’s Anti-Corruption Commitments: A Call to Action.