A/HRC/32/22 at improving transparency in public management and included citizen participation. The observatory had developed indicators for measuring good governance, including anticorruption measures. Cuba 23. The Government of Cuba underlined the importance of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, the Conference of the States Parties, the review mechanism and the intergovernmental working groups for the prevention and suppression of corruption. Cuba undertook numerous education and awareness-raising activities for all actors of society on the importance of combating corruption, which also contributed to the realization and enjoyment of human rights. The Government also drew attention to the importance of civil society organizations in the review of the implementation of the Convention. 24. Global structural causes made it impossible to eradicate corruption at the national level alone. Increased cooperation from developed countries was therefore necessary to ensure the effective implementation of the Convention, in particular the return of assets to developing countries, which would contribute to sustainable development and the realization of the rights of the peoples in those countries. Estonia 25. Estonia has integrated a human rights perspective into the preventive measures of its anti-corruption strategy. The Government referred to corruption in the heath sector, which could lead to a violation of the right to health. Consequently, the anti-corruption strategy provided for increasing transparency in the health-care sector as a preventive measure. More generally, however, the Government was of the view that not only preventive but also all anti-corruption measures indirectly addressed the negative impact of corruption on the enjoyment of human rights; therefore, all anti-corruption measures and activities implicitly incorporated human rights considerations. 26. In Estonia, the only corruption cases where human rights played a determining role were criminal proceedings where human rights violations were alleged, such as in the context of surveillance activities. 27. The Government described recent amendments to the Penal Code with regard to some corruption offences to make regulation more efficient and clear. Bribery of public officials and in the private sector became two separate offences and the distinction between “gratuity” and “bribe” was removed. 28. Anonymity was granted to reporting persons to ensure their protection. The Government had set up a special e-mail address and hotline for reporting. 29. Evidence gathered through surveillance activities was inadmissible in court if the process violated the ultima ratio principle. Surveillance activities were permitted only on the basis of the Code of Criminal Procedure if it was impossible to collect data otherwise or in time, or if the collection was especially complicated or damaged the interests of the criminal proceedings. 30. The confiscation of proceeds of corruption was possible only in accordance with the provisions of the Penal Code. The Government also shared information on the country’s legislative and practical framework for the protection of witnesses, their family members and whistle-blowers. 5