A/HRC/35/33 84. Successful prosecutions have also resulted from cooperation between the World Bank Integrity Vice Presidency and national authorities. For instance, in 2011, the Norwegian National Authority for the Investigation and Prosecution of Economic and Environmental Crime successfully prosecuted three employees of the Norwegian firm Norconsult after the Integrity Vice Presidency referred findings from its own investigation into the company’s bribery to win a contract for a World Bank-financed water supply and sanitation project in the United Republic of Tanzania.79 85. The above cases show how successful States can be when they cooperate to investigate and prosecute cross-border offences. Through a mixture of multilateral networks, parallel investigations and formal and informal cooperation, and by working with multilateral institutions, States have secured massive penalties from companies for their overseas bribery. V. Conclusions and recommendations A. Conclusions 86. As the present report indicates, when States identify a key harm that implicates the private sector, they are able to successfully develop processes and legal frameworks to promote cross-border law enforcement. Upon agreeing that certain cross-border harms, such as trafficking in persons, toxic dumping, wildlife and forestry crime, bribery and corruption, are global problems that require a coordinated global response, States develop and utilize innovative tools to foster effective cross-border cooperation. Each of those crimes affects human rights, and the Working Group applauds those efforts by States that have prevented, detected and punished violations committed by legal or natural persons. Law enforcement still faces many obstacles in pursuing cross-border cooperation in the areas outlined above, but our research and consultations revealed that States are working to continuously refine and improve their methods of cooperation, which demonstrates a willingness to find solutions. 87. However, despite numerous allegations implicating business in classic human rights violations and international crimes, investigations and prosecutions against companies are almost non-existent. 88. Thus, as a key principle, if cross-border, business-related human rights abuses amount to international crimes, those cases should be prioritized and treated the same as other international criminal cases and States should use the existing tools at their disposal, including war crimes units. 89. To the extent that cases involving business-related human rights abuse might intersect with the types of crimes or regulatory offences outlined in the report, prosecutors should also pursue these charges. For instance, if a company that is alleged to have engaged in a human rights offence has also paid a bribe, a prosecutor might pursue a corruption claim. 90. However, such a patchwork approach will inevitably leave some human rights harms unaddressed. Law enforcement should explore all potential legal avenues available when faced with cross-border harms committed by economic actors, including by framing the harms in terms of domestic criminal or administrative offences.80 This involves translating what may be labelled a human rights abuse as a 79 80 Available from www.justice.gov/opa/pr/kellogg-brown-root-llc-pleads-guilty-foreign-briberycharges-and-agrees-pay-402-million. See World Bank, “World Bank Welcomes Norwegian Convictions of Three Former Employees of Norwegian Company Norconsult in Bribery Case in Tanzania” (22 July 2011). Available from www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2011/07/22/world-bank-welcomes-norwegianconvictions-former-employees-morwegian-company-norconsult-bribery-case-tanzania. See “Corporate Crimes Principles” (footnote 3 above), pp. 42-43. 19