A/HRC/19/42 it is domestically regulated, confiscation of proceeds of crimes might not be a punitive sanction but rather a remedial measure.42 47. Provided that provisional measures are taken within these limits, their successful adoption requires active cooperation between the country harmed by corruption and the country to which the proceeds of corruption were exported. While these measures may be adopted by any competent authority (art. 31), given their restrictive nature they usually take place within the framework of judicial proceedings. In the context of mutual legal assistance, taking such measures is conditioned upon the requiring jurisdiction having initiated a criminal investigation. This is coherent with State parties’ obligations to criminalize several corruption-related offences,43 to establish liability of legal persons, 44 set a long statute-of-limitations period for proceedings related to corruption offences and a longer statuteof limitations – or its suspension – for cases in which the alleged offender has evaded the administration of justice, 45 and endeavour to ensure that any discretionary legal powers relating to the prosecution of these offences are exercised to maximize the effectiveness of law enforcement measures. 46 48. Thus, the process aimed at freezing or restraining and confiscating funds of illicit origin is grounded in two well-established human rights principles, that of international cooperation towards the realization of human rights, and that of the States’ duty to investigate human rights violations.47 The latter has been interpreted as applicable to corruption offences on the grounds that corruption directly, indirectly or remotely harms human rights.48 The applicability of the former, on the other hand, is consistent with the United Nations Convention against Corruption. And both are consistent with the Accra Agenda for Action. Returning proceeds of corruption 49. The United Nations Convention against Corruption envisages two major legal avenues for repatriating proceeds of corruption: direct recovery and international cooperation. Under the heading of “direct recovery”, article 53 groups instances in which the victim country stands before the recipient country’s courts. These instances do not present repatriation issues, as the country acts as a plaintiff and courts in recipient countries directly order restitution or compensation or recognize damages in their favor. 50. International cooperation, on the contrary, refers to cases where the victim country exercises jurisdiction to prosecute the crime of corruption and requests mutual legal assistance to the recipient country to trace, freeze, confiscate and repatriate its proceeds. The rules for the return of assets to the countries of origin are only established for cases where the victim country requests assistance. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 European Court of Human Rights, Welsh vs. United Kingdom, 9 February 1995; Phillips vs. United Kingdom, cited in note 53. United Nations Convention against Corruption, arts. 15, 16, para. 1, 17, 23 and 25. The Convention also recommends criminalizing offences in arts. 16.2, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 24. Ibid., art. 26. Ibid., art. 29. Ibid., art. 30, para.3. Human Rights Committee, “Barbato vs. Uruguay”, Communication No. 84/1981, 1983, para. 11; “Miango Muiyo vs. Zaire”, Communication No. 194/1985, 1988, para. 11; General Comment No. 31, paras. 8 and 18. International documents have even considered large scale corruption to be a “crime against humanity”. See the Seoul Findings, 11th International Anti-Corruption Conference, Seoul, 2003; the Nairobi Declaration, adopted at the Regional Conference on the Human Rights Dimensions of Corruption convened by the Kenya National Commission of Human Rights (KNCHR), 2006. 13