A/HRC/19/42 43. However, this will only be true if the authorities at the destination country make every possible effort to reduce the conditions under which a case might be started. Currently, recipient countries do not usually take ownership over the cases, even when they are in a good position to move the process forward. The human rights-based approach to the asset-recovery process, which emphasizes the recipient country’s duty to cooperate and be accountable, reinforces the argument for proactive investigation. 44. Indeed, the framework for the prevention and detection of illicit flows under the United Nations Convention against Corruption enshrines human rights principles. By increasing oversight over public officials’ transactions, it strengthens accountability. In addition, the principles of participation and transparency, which are enshrined in chapter II of the United Nations Convention against Corruption on preventive measures, cover all required measures related to the implementation of the anti-money laundering framework in both the public and private sectors. 45. Finally, the framework of the United Nations Convention against Corruption also reinforces business responsibility towards complying with applicable laws, an aim that has been pursued in the last decade by several initiatives focused on making companies respect human rights. The United Nations Global Compact, for example, aims to make companies embrace 10 principles in the areas of labour, environment, anti-corruption, and human rights. In the same vein, the "Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” (see A/HRC/17/31, annex) set a framework based on (a) the State duty to protect against human rights abuses, (b) the corporate responsibility to comply with and respect all applicable laws and human rights, and (c) the need for greater access to effective remedies by victims in order to achieve “the effective prevention of, and remedy for, business-related human rights harm”.38 These complementary initiatives should reinforce the implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption. Freezing or restraining and confiscating 46. The adoption of measures aimed at freezing, restraining and confiscating funds of illicit origin need not be detrimental to due-process rights, neither to defendants nor to asset holders, being in criminal or civil procedures. Some provisions recommended by the United Nations Convention against Corruption have been previously challenged on a human rights basis. Article 31, paragraph 8, recommends requiring an offender to demonstrate the lawful origin of not only the alleged proceeds of crime but also of other property liable to confiscation. Similar provisions were analysed in a set of precedents that established the conditions that must be met in order not to violate due-process rights. Such precedents held that the right to be presumed innocent is not an absolute right, 39 and that legal presumptions in criminal law are not per se restrictive to such right as long as States take into account the importance of what is at stake, and respect the right to defense. 40 Thus, as far as in employing presumptions State parties conduct a balancing approach and so far as the means employed are reasonably proportionate to the legitimate aim sought to be achieved, challenges based on the presumption of innocence will not succeed. 41 The possibility of non-conviction-based confiscations was also upheld on the grounds that, depending on how 38 39 40 41 12 Idem, Introduction, para. 16. European Court of Human Rights, Krumpholz vs. Austria, 18 March 2010, para. 34; Grayson and Barnham vs. United Kingdom, 23 September 2008, para. 40; Muller vs. Austria, 18 September 2008, para. 40; Phillips vs. United Kingdom, 5 July 2001, para. 40. European Court of Human Rights, Phillips vs. United Kingdom, 5 July 2001, para. 40; Salabiaku vs. France, 7 October 1988, para. 28. European Court of Human Rights, Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag and Vulic vs Sweden, 23 July 2002.