A/HRC/19/42 reporting to competent authorities”. The rate of compliance with this standard remains low, both in the developed and the developing worlds.12 10. Even if flows of illicit origin are reported or otherwise detected, additional legal obstacles can be found in the subsequent stages of the process. Most of them take place in the context of mutual legal assistance in criminal matters between the originating and the recipient jurisdictions. Many cases fail at the tracing phase due to exigent requirements imposed by requested jurisdictions in a stage where the requesting jurisdiction is in a weak position for collecting evidence. Typical examples include requiring the originating jurisdiction to provide an exact link between the assets and the offence, the names of bank account holders or to identify the assets with an extreme degree of accuracy. These requirements, which are usually higher in jurisdictions applying strict bank secrecy laws, are difficult to meet at early stages of the investigation. Chapters IV and V of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, which oblige requested jurisdictions to assist in the tracing stage, should be sufficient to overcome this barrier. Nonetheless, the central authorities of many State parties either do not resort to these rules as a legal basis for cooperation or read them in accordance with their preexisting domestic legislation and practices, reducing their scope and innovative broad approach. 13 11. The success of most recovery efforts depends upon timely adoption of provisional measures to freeze or restrain the assets. Although the risks of dissipation are inherent to the context, many jurisdictions impose important burdens on the requesting State for freezing assets, even when the rights of the accused are restricted on a rational and proportional basis. Some jurisdictions give ample rights to the asset-holder, allowing for long lasting parallel proceedings in the requested State, when the rights of the asset-holder – being a defendant or not – should be exercised before the Courts of the requesting jurisdiction. When these measures take place in the tracing stage, they usually lead to the dissipation of the assets.14 12. When confiscation depends on obtaining a criminal conviction, as is the case in most jurisdictions, the requesting country might need to reach that stage within time constraints imposed by the legislation of the requested jurisdiction, for example the lifting of provisional measures and/or the statute of limitations. Many jurisdictions do not provide for an alternative when conviction is impossible to reach, for example when the defendant enjoys immunity, is a fugitive, dies, or when the case reached the statute of limitation. This obstacle could be overcome by following article 54, paragraph 1 (c), of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, which recommends de-linking confiscation from conviction for the purposes of providing mutual legal assistance. 13. If proceeds of corruption are confiscated, requested States need to have legislation allowing for their repatriation. It has been reported that “only a very limited number of jurisdictions have the legal authority to return 100 percent of stolen assets”15, even when article 57, paragraph 2, of the United Nations Convention against Corruption requires State Parties to adopt such measures. 14. While variances in legal traditions increase the obstacles, differences in experience, technical resources and even in the risks faced by the authorities in requesting and requested jurisdictions can play an important role. In 97 per cent of the cases included in 12 13 14 15 Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative, “Politically Exposed Persons: Preventive Measures for the Banking Sector” (Washington D.C., 2010), available at http://www1.worldbank.org/finance/star_site/publications/politically_exposed.html. Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative, cited in note 11 above. Ibid. Ibid. 5