A/HRC/43/66 I. Mandate and background 1. In its resolution 34/11, the Human Rights Council requested the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee to conduct a study, in continuation of the study requested by the Council in its resolution 31/22, on the possibility of utilizing non-repatriated illicit funds, including through monetization and/or the establishment of investment funds, while completing the necessary legal procedures and in accordance with national priorities, with a view to supporting the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, contributing to the enhancement of the promotion of human rights and in accordance with obligations under international human rights law. 2. The Advisory Committee was requested to present the outcome of the study to the Human Rights Council at its thirty-ninth session. In view of the complexity of the question, which went beyond legal issues and required the consideration of financial structuring, the Council agreed that it would be presented to it at a later session. 3. Also in resolution 34/11, the Advisory Committee was requested to seek, if necessary, further views and the input of Member States, relevant international and regional organizations, United Nations bodies, including the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations, in order to finalize the study. 4. Two States (Côte d’Ivoire and the Philippines) and one national human rights institution (India) responded to the questionnaire that was circulated. 5. At its twentieth session, the Advisory Committee established a drafting group to prepare the report. The group was composed of Ibrahim Abdulaziz Alsheddi, Ludovic Hennebel, Mikhail Lebedev, Ajai Malhotra (Chair), Mona Omar, Changrok Soh, Dheerujlall Seetulsingh (Rapporteur) and Jean Ziegler. 6. In its resolution 40/4, the Human Rights Council requested the Advisory Committee to seek the views of regional and international experts and organizations, as well as United Nations bodies and non-governmental organizations, on the question, including by holding a one-day meeting in Geneva in April or May 2019. 7. The meeting was able to be held only on 7 October 2019 in Geneva and was attended by a former Governor of the Central Bank of Tunisia, the Special Rapporteur on the right to development, the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, the Head of the Debt and Development Finance Branch of the Division on Globalization and Development Strategies of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and a national human rights expert from Tunisia. The experts made certain useful proposals on the way forward, which are included in the present report.1 8. In the study conducted pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 31/22 (see A/HRC/36/52 and Corr.1), the Advisory Committee addressed the main challenges hampering and delaying the repatriation of illicit funds, drawing on earlier United Nationssponsored studies, including those of the Independent Expert (A/HRC/22/42 and A/HRC/22/42/Corr.1, A/HRC/28/60 and A/HRC/28/60/Corr.1 and A/HRC/31/61). It also compiled relevant best practices for putting a stop to illicit flows of funds, which usually flow from developing countries or less developed countries to banks and financial institutions in developed countries, often after transiting through various jurisdictions. Measures to be taken by countries of origin and destination to facilitate the repatriation of funds were also described and recommended. 9. At the meeting held by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in June 2019 on the theme “Recommended human rights principles and guidelines for the return of stolen assets”, to which the Advisory Committee was not a 1 The experts from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and from the Government of Switzerland could not attend. Lawyers engaged in the field of finance declined the invitation. 3