A/HRC/19/42 to this principle, States’ obligations to respect, protect, and fulfil human rights are not only applicable in relation to their own domestic populations but do have an extraterritorial scope, applying to both countries in a position to assist and countries in need of assistance.27 25. As with other forms of international cooperation, such as international cooperation for development and for the realization of economic, social, and cultural rights, mutual legal assistance implies a mutual responsibility. In the context of asset-recovery processes, on the one hand, countries of origin must seek repatriation as part of their duty to ensure the application of the maximum available resources to the full realization of economic, social, and cultural rights. On the other hand, recipient countries have the duty to assist and facilitate repatriation as part of their obligation of international cooperation and assistance. 26. Therefore, a human rights-based approach28 to the asset-recovery process not only demands that countries of origin make every effort to achieve the recovery and repatriation of proceeds of corruption for implementation of their international human rights obligations, it also demands that recipient countries understand repatriation not as a discretionary measure but also as a duty derived from the obligations of international cooperation and assistance. III. Impacts on States’ capacity to fulfil their human rights obligations A. The negative impact of the non-repatriation of funds of illicit origin to the countries of origin on the enjoyment of human rights, in particular economic, social and cultural rights 27. On the surface, it seems apparent that any resource that the State is deprived of because of corruption has the same negative effect, regardless of whether it is exported or domestically retained.29 Along the same lines, proceeds of corruption reintegrated into the State budget will, if invested in accordance with human rights obligations, positively impact these rights. 28. As recovered resources are not foreseen or public income included in the budget, States must allocate them in accordance with their obligation to devote the maximum of available resources to the fulfilment of economic, social, and cultural rights. This is the starting point with regards to the measures that must be taken with repatriated funds. 29. There is no straightforward answer about how money is best invested in order to realize economic, social, and cultural rights. While the duty to allocate restituted funds in 27 28 29 8 Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, principles 28 and 29; Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 4; Declaration on the Right to Development, arts. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 4.2; Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, arts. 1, 4, 10, and 11. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 3, para. 13; general comment No. 14, para. 45; general comment No. 15, paras. 37-38; general comment No. 17, paras. 36-38; general comment No. 18, paras. 29-30; Limburg Principles, principle 26. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Frequently asked questions on a human rights-based approach to development cooperation”, United Nations, New York and Geneva, 2006. This is, however, a matter of debate, as resources domestically retained, if domestically laundered and productively invested, might increase domestic wealth and potentially human welfare. Mick Moore, “The practical political economy of illicit flows”, in Reuter (ed.), cited in note 17.