A/HRC/44/27 V. Criminalization and law enforcement 52. UNODC drew attention to challenges to human rights in the sentencing practices of some countries, where those convicted of certain corruption offences may face the death penalty. In line with article 30 (1) of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, States parties should make the commission of corruption offences liable to sanctions that take into account the gravity of the offence. Although article 65 (2) of the Convention allows States parties to adopt more strict or severe measures than those provided for by the Convention, such sanctions should not affect the right to life and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Human Rights Committee has explained, in its general comment No. 36 (2018) on the right to life, that the term “the most serious crimes”, for which the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights accepts the possibility of imposing the death penalty, must be read restrictively and appertain only to crimes of extreme gravity, involving intentional killing. The Committee has also asserted that economic and political crimes such as corruption, although grave in nature, can never, within the framework of article 6 of the Covenant, provide the basis for the death penalty. Abolishing the death penalty for corruption offences or at least imposing a moratorium on such sentences is therefore a good practice. 53. Several submissions included information on reforms of penal codes and criminal procedures codes. Several countries also shared information on the number of criminal cases pending and concluded. The Slovak National Centre for Human Rights highlighted that the absence of sanctions against high-profile perpetrators and the consequent impunity was a major challenge in the fight against corruption. 54. Under article 30 (2) of the United Nations Convention against Corruption States parties have undertaken to take measures to establish or maintain an appropriate balance between any immunities or jurisdictional privileges accorded to its public officials for the performance of their functions and the possibility of effectively investigating, prosecuting and adjudicating corruption offences. The Centre of Analysis and Research in Human Rights and the International Network of Human Rights recommended in this regard the abolishment of parliamentary immunity in cases of corruption and the possibility of summoning the President. 55. Transparency manifests itself also in the protection of witnesses, experts, victims and those reporting facts concerning offences established in accordance with the United Nations Convention against Corruption (arts. 32–33). Several submissions contained information on the applicable laws and regulations aimed at protecting whistle-blowers against reprisals. The European Union, for example, shared information on the directive on protecting whistle-blowers. That directive and its implementing regulations guaranteed a high level of protection for whistle-blowers reporting breaches of European Union law. It established safe channels for reporting both to an organization and to public authorities and protected whistle-blowers, in the public and the private sectors, against retaliation, broadly defined. Georgia reported having amended its laws to strengthen the protection of whistleblowers. Moreover, its Civil Service Bureau had carried out an extensive programme to raise awareness among civil servants of the whistle-blower regulations and their rights. Additionally, a software programme called “red button” had been developed to allow for confidential reporting of alleged misconduct. 56. The Slovak National Centre for Human Rights referred to a new law (Act No. 54/2019), which transferred the burden of proof to the employer, expanded the legal definition of whistle-blower and established an office for the protection of persons reporting on antisocial activities. 57. Under article 36 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, States parties have committed themselves to ensuring the existence of a body or bodies or persons specialized in combating corruption through law enforcement. Latvia shared information on the work done by its Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau. It highlighted that the Bureau was tasked with monitoring the compliance of political organizations (parties) and related associations with financial regulations and with inspecting compliance with specific restrictions. The Bureau also ensured compliance with general principles of law, human rights, public participation and access to information on administrative, policy and legislative initiatives. In order to ensure the involvement of civil society, the Director of the 11