A/HRC/26/42 to the notion of “corruption” is the definition proposed by Transparency International.3 According to that definition, corruption is “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain”.4 On the one hand, this is a rather broad definition which encompasses a wide range of different behaviours. Unlike the provisions of criminal law, which determine specific offences, the above-mentioned definition is more open. On the other hand, it has been argued that the notion of all three elements of the definition, that is to say “abuse”, “entrusted power” and “for private gain”, can lead to the exclusion of conducts that should be characterized as corruption too. For instance, the use (or abuse) of illegally claimed power can lead to corruption. Therefore, even this rather broad definition can be too narrow in respect of specific forms of misbehaviour that should also be regarded as corruption. 6. The drafting group did not deem it necessary for the purposes of this report to develop a clear-cut definition of corruption. Instead, it decided to look at the link between corruption and the enjoyment of human rights, for which purpose it focused on the results of the conduct. Moreover, the development of a definition of corruption did not fall within the scope of the request of the Human Rights Council to the Advisory Committee, which was to prepare a report on the negative impact of corruption on the enjoyment of human rights. B. Different categories of corruption 7. Even though there is no overall agreed definition of corruption, different forms of corruption have been recognized. When looking at corruption from a human rights perspective, it is interesting to differentiate between corruption by the State (corruption in the public sector) and corruption by non-State entities (corruption in the private sector).5 Corruption in the public sector can occur in government, in administration, in the legislature and in the judiciary. In these contexts, it is clear that the State is responsible for any violation of human rights resulting from the conduct of persons acting in their public capacity. Furthermore, the State can also be responsible for human rights violations caused by corruption in the private sector. The duty of States to protect against human rights violations obliges States to protect people and consequently requires States to prevent human rights violations by third parties. According to this dimension of human rights, States must act (and not only refrain from violating human rights) in order to fulfil their human rights obligations. 8. Recognition of these two categories should not obscure the fact that corruption also takes place in international or global settings. In parallel to the two above-mentioned categories, corruption at the international level occurs in international organizations and in transnational business enterprises. In the first case, international organizations and their member States are responsible for the conduct of the organization, and especially for any resulting violation of human rights. It is more difficult to establish responsibility of specific States for corruption occurring within the transnational business sector. On the one hand, each State is responsible for fulfilling its obligations resulting from human rights treaties or from national constitutional orders. Hence, it has to combat corruption committed by transnational business enterprises acting on its territory. On the other hand, it is quite clear that combating corruption in transnational business enterprises adequately and effectively 3 4 5 4 Transparency International is an internationally recognized non-governmental organization promoting “a world in which government, politics, business, civil society and the daily lives of people are free of corruption”. See http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo. See, for example, Sharon Eicher, Corruption in International Business (Gower Publishing Company, 2009), p. 4 et seq.