A/HRC/19/42 conformity with the “maximum available resources” principle must govern allocation decisions, no general one-fits-all rule can be suggested, since claims are dependent on the particular situation of each country. However, the human rights-based approach provides important guidance to take into account. 30. In the first place, it requires that the decision-making process complies with both principles of transparency and participation. Decisions over resources allocation cannot be made behind closed doors, but publicly and openly, with due attention to civil society’s demands. In some cases, lack of transparency and participation in the allocation decisions can end up in the use of the recovered assets to ends different from those sought by human rights principles.30 Moreover, publicity for and accessibility of budget information, which should be compiled in easy-to-monitor categories, is essential in order to notice spending priorities and make the right allocation decisions. 31 Lastly, the allocation decision-making process would benefit from comparing actual budget allocations against human rights indicators.32 31. On the other hand, the allocation decision-making process should also be informed by the human rights-based approach principle of providing effective remedies, including the creation of conditions for avoiding new human rights violations in the future. Applied to the context of repatriation agreements envisaged by article 57, paragraph 5, of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, this principle could be used as a framework for these usually difficult negotiations. The human rights-based approach requires that repatriated funds be appropriately used in the creation of conditions for complying with human rights obligations and for avoiding new corruption-based diversions. There are national precedents that show a path for future reference in search of matching both the needs of the society harmed by the consequences of corruption and the recipients’ concerns about the final destination of the returned funds. 32. Additionally, managing and oversight mechanisms can be as important as making the correct decision for the final destination of the funds. These include establishing the procedures and the authorities that will be accountable for guaranteeing that the allocation decisions will be strictly followed. Well-designed tracking arrangements facilitate oversight activities and continuous monitoring, particularly by civil society organizations. 33. These management arrangements are enhanced when they are in line with the human rights-based approach, since transparency, participation and accountability are three main pillars of any scheme devised for pursuing proper and efficient administration, including public recordings of receipts, public declarations of intended use of funds and public budgeting, public reporting on actual expenditures and on the achieved results, proper mechanisms of auditing, and official response and measures to correct identified weaknesses or mismanagement. The need for transparency in budget spending is a lesson that has been learned from situations in which the recovered assets transfered to an offbudget fund gave rise to a number of questionable transactions. 30 31 32 Ignasio Jimu, “Managing proceeds of asset recovery: The case of Nigeria, Peru, the Philippines and Kazakhstan”, Basel Institute on Governance, Working Paper Series No. 06, 2009, pp. 11-12. Examples from the cases of Nigeria, Peru, the Philippines and Kazakhstan in this section are also based on this article. Balakrishnan and others, “Maximum available resources & human rights: analytical report”, Center for Women’s Global Leadership, Rutgers, 2011, p. 9. HRI/MC/2008/3. 9