A/HRC/28/73 When accountability mechanisms are weak or non-existent, it becomes easy for corruption and for human rights violations to occur.27 34. It must be stressed that the human rights approach is not meant to be the exclusive way to tackle corruption. Highlighting the connection between human rights and corruption does not mean to jeopardize the prosecution of people found guilty of criminal offences because of acts of corruption or their liability under private law. The purpose of examining this connection is to identify additional avenues for developing strategies against corruption. V. Are there experiences of integrating a human rights perspective into the fight against corruption? 35. The responses to the questionnaires received from States, national human rights institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other stakeholders have permitted an analysis of whether, at the national level, there have been any experiences of integrating a human rights perspective into the fight against corruption. 36. The responses highlight the different institutional approaches to dealing with corruption. In a number of States, independent agencies have been tasked with counteracting corruption. Other States, in their replies, make reference to agencies or departments of the government that were assigned similar responsibilities. The organizational structure of such agencies or specialized institutions varies from State to State. In some States, NGOs are an important instrument in combating corruption. In addition, inspection bodies (e.g. supreme audit institutions) play an important role; some of these bodies expressed their interest in exploring human rights–based approaches, and work collaboratively with civil society and human rights organizations. Other States mention criminal prosecution or human rights institutions as the main instruments used in their fight against corruption. 37. With regard to the integration of a human rights perspective into strategies to combat corruption via cooperation between anti-corruption institutions and human rights institutions, the responses from States to the questionnaire reflect a multifaceted situation. Some of the responses indicate that there is either no cooperation or no effective cooperation. Often, there is no formal cooperation, but rather informal cooperation, via, for example, meetings, workshops, lectures, common training sessions, or exchanges of information. Inter-institutional working groups are a more formal means of cooperation mentioned in the responses. Some States indicate that cooperation between the institutions concerned exists on a case-by-case basis. To summarize, many States emphasized the need for, and the importance of, cooperation between the anti-corruption institutions and the human rights institutions, while specifying that such cooperation is at present informal and ad hoc in nature. These findings are also reflected in the responses to the questionnaire from national human rights institutions and some NGOs. 38. With regard to NGOs’ responses to the questionnaire, it is noteworthy that some NGOs quote examples of cooperation between anti-corruption institutions and human rights institutions. However, no information is provided about the ways in which that cooperation takes place. The need for and importance of such cooperation is stressed in some responses. 39. In that regard, the response from the Council of Europe should be highlighted. It provides an illustrative example of integrating a human rights perspective into strategies to 27 12 See Sharon Eicher, Corruption in International Business, p. 8 et seq.