A/HRC/43/66 means that, without reasonable grounds being put forward, they would reject any contention about the suspicious nature of certain funds. This is explained in detail by Radha Ivory of the University of Queensland in her analysis of the rich jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and of local courts in protecting the human rights of individuals in cases of asset recovery. 2 16. The possibility of utilizing non-repatriated illicit funds is therefore more realizable if applied to funds transferred by persons in the public domain or their associates and accomplices, such as former dictators who have absconded, who have passed away or who have been imprisoned, than to funds transferred by individuals in the private sector. 17. This does not preclude, however, the possibility of utilizing funds transferred by individuals in the private domain, should there be sufficient grounds for doing so, as there is in the case of unexplained wealth (i.e., where an individual who is not “in the public sector” in his or her country of origin cannot explain the source of the monies he or she is investing in the country of destination). Any course of action in that regard may still be subject to delays in judicial proceedings. Furthermore, not many jurisdictions have adopted the approach of shifting the burden of proof onto persons in whose name the funds or assets are held to explain the source of their wealth. III. Freezing illicit funds 18. The asset recovery process is a lengthy one. After the investigation and tracing of the stolen assets, which may have transited through various jurisdictions, and after a request has been made through a mutual legal assistance mechanism to have the assets seized, the next stage is freezing the assets to prevent the holders from transferring them out of the jurisdiction of the relevant State. 19. The State that has frozen the assets would normally refuse to transfer the funds to the requesting State until such time as a final judgment has been delivered on the rightful ownership of the assets in question in both States. 20. The question is how the non-repatriated funds may be used in favour of the countries of origin, pending their repatriation, to help them to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. 21. The first matter to be tackled concerning asset freezing is that there must be an agreement, albeit a tacit one, that the funds are of illicit origin, without waiting for a court to rule on the matter. In a study conducted in 2014, the World Bank mentioned the administrative freezing and confiscation measures that were used to freeze the assets held by individuals suspected of misappropriating the assets of Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. In those cases, infamous former rulers or Heads of Government had misappropriated assets and transferred them to institutions, mainly in developed countries. Some countries of destination have been willing to pass laws, regulations and decrees to freeze such assets. The authors of the study noted, for example, that: Innovative measures that were quite successful – in terms both of broad application and of actual results obtained – were the laws, decisions and decrees passed requiring the freezing of assets held by individuals suspected of misappropriating assets of [Egypt], Libya or Tunisia. Canada, the European Union, Switzerland and the United States [of America] are among the countries [and entities] that acted rapidly to freeze assets, ultimately freezing 39 percent of the total value of assets frozen between 2010 and June 2012. These measures differed from past cases because they were administrative in nature – an order by government to banks and other entities to freeze assets – as opposed to requiring a judicial order by a court or investigating magistrate, as well as a mutual legal assistance request. Such measures are typically reserved for situations such as 2 Radha Ivory, Corruption, Asset Recovery and the Protection of Property in Public International Law: the Human Rights of Bad Guys (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2014). 5