A/HRC/44/47 32. In the preparation of the present report, the information and analysis gathered at the various meetings held in 2019 and the contributions from States, prosecution services and organizations specializing in the field indicate that corruption practices have become more complex and have had an enormous impact on institutional work, both in terms of judicial systems sensu stricto and in connection with the specific area of responsibility of prosecution services. 33. It is important to note that, despite often adverse contexts, there are also a considerable number of successful criminal cases in which high-powered individuals from the political and financial spheres are being investigated, prosecuted and convicted for serious offences relating to transnational corruption. However, the Special Rapporteur notes that although several high-profile cases have been resolved effectively, endemic institutional, normative and operational challenges persist and have contributed to the obstruction or failure of many very important investigations. This not only encourages corruption, but also weakens criminal justice systems and impacts the public prosecution service and, more widely, leads to institutional conditions that are not conducive to the upholding of human rights. IV. Prosecutors and the obligation of international cooperation 34. The independence of prosecution services falls within the general scope of judicial independence enshrined in article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is an obligation that has been developed in the Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors and which must be upheld. It is not a privilege to be granted or not as States see fit. 26 35. In the extensive list of obligations States enter into under the Convention, which has been ratified by 186 countries, two core aspects stand out with regard to the role and responsibility of prosecutors: the independence and integrity of prosecutors, and international cooperation. The two aspects are interrelated, and independence is central to them. A. Independence, integrity and international cooperation 36. Independence and integrity are established in the Convention as components that are essential to ensuring viable cooperation among States to investigate and punish corruption. 27 In that regard, article 11 refers to two specific aspects, firstly, “the independence of the judiciary and its crucial role in combating corruption”, and secondly, the obligation of States parties to take “measures to strengthen integrity and to prevent opportunities for corruption among members of the judiciary”. The two principles, that is, independence and integrity, are established in the Convention as being relevant to both judges and prosecutors. The members of public prosecution services can thus be valid and legitimate key actors in the international fight against corruption as long as they remain independent and are afforded measures by the State to strengthen their integrity. 37. Mutual legal assistance is one of the main obligations set forth in the Convention, and is contained in the longest and most complex article of this international treaty.28 The elements of “investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings” in relation to corruption 26 27 A/HRC/35/31, para. 24. “Article 11. Measures relating to the judiciary and prosecution services 1. Bearing in mind the independence of the judiciary and its crucial role in combating corruption, each State Party shall, in accordance with the fundamental principles of its legal system and without prejudice to judicial independence, take measures to strengthen integrity and to prevent opportunities for corruption among members of the judiciary. Such measures may include rules with respect to the conduct of members of the judiciary. 28 GE.20-04343 2. Measures to the same effect as those taken pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article may be introduced and applied within the prosecution service in those States Parties where it does not form part of the judiciary but enjoys independence similar to that of the judicial service.” Art. 46. 7