A/HRC/34/55 selected children; that amount represents more than half of the cost of adoption and is unrelated to the local cost of living. 58 3. Role of intermediaries 65. The fact that intercountry adoptions are mediated by private agencies means that they too can enable illegal practices. This is particularly true in respect of private agencies that are not authorized to work as adoption accredited bodies. 59 Such agencies usually finance their operations by charging fees to prospective adoptive parents. As those fees will not be forthcoming unless the agency secures children for adoption, some agencies employ methods or accept conditions that encourage the commission of illegal acts and illicit practices. In some instances, the demand for adoptable children creates an unhealthy competition among agencies. Adoption agencies often claim that they lack knowledge of illicit practices or that they lack control over intermediaries in countries of origin. However, the financial gain behind the illicit practices, which is often linked to money-laundering, often puts such claims into question. 66. When adoption agencies establish privileged links with childcare facilities, there is an additional possibility for illegal adoptions to happen. The risk is all the greater when care facilities are not registered or when their operation depends on payments provided by adoption agencies.60 As already mentioned, the need for payments means that alternative care institutions must ensure a constant supply of adoptable children to guarantee their existence, regardless of the actual child protection needs. 4. Circumventing the 1993 Hague Convention 67. The existence of intercountry adoptions from countries of origin that are not party to the 1993 Hague Convention is linked to a higher risk of illegal adoptions. Some major States of origin, such as Ethiopia, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, are not yet party to the Convention, which means that many intercountry adoptions do not benefit from its guarantees and safeguards.61 States parties to the Convention, in their relations with noncontracting States, are expected to apply as far as practicable the standards and safeguards of the Convention.62 68. Although some bilateral agreements have been signed between countries of origin that are not parties to the 1993 Hague Convention and receiving countries, 63 they often do not meet the standards of the Convention and delay accession to it by non-States parties. Moreover, the existence of such agreements increases the risk of undue pressure from the receiving country on the country of origin to ensure that intercountry adoptions occur regardless of the actual need.64 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 See www.ibesr.com/fichier/HaitiCo%C3%BBt%20de%20la%20proc%C3%A9dure%20d’adoption.pdf. See https://assets.hcch.net/upload/adoguide2en.pdf. Flavie Fuentes, Hervé Boéchat and Felicity Northcott, Investigating the Grey Zones of Intercountry Adoption (International Social Service, 2012), p. 92. See https://assets.hcch.net/docs/f9f65ec0-1795-435c-aadf-77617816011c.pdf. See https://assets.hcch.net/upload/adoguide_e.pdf. All major receiving States are parties to the 1993 Hague Convention. See www.mfof.se/Documents/remissvar-ochrapporter/Report%20to%20Swedish%20Government%20March%202015%20%20Commission%20conc%20bilateral%20agreements%20on%20intercountry%20adoption.pdf. 15