A/HRC/41/20 protection mandate, it monitored the situation of actors involved in investigations, such as human rights defenders, journalists, judicial authorities, victims and witnesses, who were threatened or at risk. 23. Interaction with international human rights mechanisms and the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala helped to deepen the understanding of challenges relating to human rights, including of networks that contributed to inequality or to the exclusion of vulnerable sectors of society. It also contributed to the conclusion that an effective anti-corruption strategy had to be based on human rights principles and norms, such as an independent press, freedom of expression, access to information, the transparency of the political system and accountability. The human rights-based approach to corruption highlighted the responsibility of the State to react in the face of the negative consequences of corruption, including prevention and sanctioning. Moreover, it highlighted the need to look beyond the corrupt act itself and see the consequences of corruption for human rights. 24. Ms. Valiña also highlighted the State’s obligation to undertake simultaneously structural reforms that address the root causes of exclusion, inequality and discrimination. While combating corruption was a central issue, the human rights-based approach underlined the importance of adopting a comprehensive, holistic approach. Eradicating corruption would not automatically bring about the realization of human rights, although it would generate better opportunities for groups that were most vulnerable. What was required, in addition, was the transformation of the structural patterns underlying inequality, racism and discrimination. Only by overcoming these patterns would it be possible to ensure that no one was left behind. 25. The Executive Secretary of the International Anti-Corruption Academy, Mr. Kreutner, addressed the possibility of “preaching and teaching” anti-corruption activities. Public services were often for sale, which could lead to devastating consequences for the enjoyment of human rights. By way of example, he referred to a series of cases where a number of people had died, ultimately because of corruption. He also traced the origins of the “Arab spring” to facts relating to Mohamed Bouazizi, a street vendor in Tunisia who was constantly harassed by corrupt officials. People investigating corruption in Europe had been assassinated. The victims of corruption included not only direct, individual victims, but also whole sections of societies. Journalists and reporting persons were also at risk of human rights violations, in both developed and developing countries. 26. In Mr. Kreutner’s view, preventing corruption was possible through education. He emphasized in this context three levels of learning. The first was factual knowledge transfer, namely, teaching the rules on anti-corruption, such as the relevant Sustainable Development Goals, human rights norms and the United Nations Convention against Corruption norms. The second was implementation based on extrinsic motivations, such as incentives and sanctions. The third was internalization and ownership, namely, to do the right thing because of the conviction that they are right, not out of fear of sanctions or through the motivation given by incentives. Anti-corruption efforts had to be elevated to the level of intrinsic motivation, and consequently collective action. Ideally, societies had to rise above sanctions-only systems to an intrinsic rejection of corruption on the cultural level. He emphasized in this context the importance of good practices and role models. 27. To drive the anti-corruption and human rights agendas forward, it was necessary to invest in education. Investing in anti-corruption education and empowerment was the smart way to ensure sustainable development, safeguard human rights and strengthen the rule of law. 28. Mr. Kreutner therefore recommended (a) that the momentum against corruption be kept (an aspect that was even more important against the backdrop of the global crisis of multilateralism); (b) the promotion of the right to accessibility as part of the right to information (big data and new technologies required the right to have access to information and data, and to use these new tools); and (c) that hypertransparency be questioned and rejected (transparency should not evolve into a justification for omnipotent 24/7 surveillance mechanisms). To counterbalance hypertransparency, it was important to stress more prominently the right to privacy, the right to correct and delete incorrect data and, 6