A/HRC/19/42 various obligations which are of immediate effect.”19 Thus, the Committee held that “while the full realization of the relevant rights may be achieved progressively, steps towards that goal must be taken within a reasonably short time after the Covenant's entry into force for the States concerned. Such steps should be deliberate, concrete and targeted as clearly as possible towards meeting the obligations recognized in the Covenant”. 20 Thus, the progressive realization of economic, social, and cultural rights “should not be misinterpreted as depriving the obligation of all meaningful content”. 21 21. In addition, the Committee stressed that article 2, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights “must be read in the light of the overall objective, indeed the raison d'être, of the Covenant which is to establish clear obligations for States parties in respect of the full realization of the rights in question, … it thus imposes an obligation to move as expeditiously and effectively as possible towards that goal [and that] any deliberately retrogressive measures in that regard would require the most careful consideration and would need to be fully justified by reference to the totality of the rights provided for in the Covenant and in the context of the full use of the maximum available resources”.22 For this reason it is understood that States have a minimum core obligation to ensure the satisfaction of, at the very least, minimum essential levels of every right, and that “in order for a State party to be able to attribute its failure to meet at least its minimum core obligations to a lack of available resources it must demonstrate that every effort has been made to use all resources that are at its disposition in an effort to satisfy, as a matter of priority, those minimum obligations”.23 22. That corruption impedes States from complying with their human rights obligations has been increasingly emphasized.24 It is believed that diversion of available resources due to corruption impacts the obligation to take steps, to the maximum of available resources, to progressively achieve the full realization of economic, social, and cultural rights. 25 Rights violation due to corruption-related diversion of funds is particularly apparent when States cannot fulfil their minimum core obligations regarding each right. 23. In this context, under certain conditions a successful procedure of asset repatriation might remedy the State’s corruption-related failure to complying with human rights obligations. Being a component of any anti-corruption strategy, the asset-recovery process should be understood in light of the human rights framework, as part of the several efforts that States must make in order to comply with their human rights obligations. 24. These obligations apply to both countries of origin and recipient countries of funds of illicit origin due to the principle of international cooperation and assistance towards the realization of human rights, particularly economic, social, and cultural rights. 26 According 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 3, para. 1. Idem., para. 2. Idem., para. 9. Ibid. Idem., para. 10. CRC/C/COG/CO/1, para. 14; E/CN.4/2006/52/Add.4, paras. 80, 96; E/CN.4/2006/48, para. 44; E/CN.4/2001/53, paras. 69 and 75; CESCR E/C.12/1/ADD.91, 2003, para. 12. OHCHR organized two conferences linking anti-corruption work with human rights protection (Seminar on Good Governance Practices for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, 2004, Seoul; UN Conference on Anti-Corruption Measures, Good Governance and Human Rights, 2006, Warsaw). Moreover, Human Rights Council resolution 11/7 recognized effective anti-corruption measures and human rights protection as mutually reinforcing. CRC/C/15/Add.124, paras. 18 and 19. Charter of the United Nations, Arts. 55 and 56; International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, art. 2, para. 1; Limburg Principles on the Implementation of the International 7