A/HRC/36/52 multiple jurisdictions to extinguish traces of ownership. 82 As such, it is too often very hard to conclusively identify the beneficial owner of a company. Debates over conditionality or the human rights-based approach 69. This is rapidly shaping into one of the most divisive issues in the repatriation of illicit funds. Advocates of conditionality — particularly in the destination countries in the global North — insist that the return of funds be conditioned on promises that the country of origin will use them to satisfy human rights obligations. 83 Predictably, countries of origin in the global South are vehemently opposed to the idea of conditionality being attached to the use of their own funds.84 Further, they contend that they should be able to design and fund development projects based on their national priorities, not on Western notions of “appropriate” human rights projects. The notion is thus highly problematic. IX. Importance of international cooperation in the return of funds of illicit origin 70. Illicit financial flows carry serious economic and human rights consequences that cannot be redressed without concerted international cooperation, and even solidarity. For example, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights notes that both multinational corporations and individuals from Africa drain billions of dollars every year from the continent.85 Unless all countries commit to significantly more coordinated global action to address loopholes, weak laws and monitoring across jurisdictions, many such countries will continue to be drained of their revenue potential. 71. The return of illicit financial flows derived from tax abuse, criminal activity and/or corruption depends in part on the forensic audit skills and strong State prosecution services that some countries of origin, particularly developing countries, lack. This need is exacerbated where law enforcement authorities lack the ability to prosecute transnational crime86 and where criminal syndicates and politicians control or have significant influence over the legal and State authorities in the source countries. Finally, repatriation is also exceedingly difficult where the underlying wrongful act is civil in nature rather than criminal. 72. In many cases where illicit financial flows are routed via multiple jurisdictions to their eventual destination, repatriation also requires engagement with multiple legal regimes. Without greater international cooperation, it will be even more difficult for many countries of origin to trace illicit financial flows and meet the standards of proof required to effect repatriation. There will also be a host of procedural issues. In Jamaica, for example, domestic courts necessarily address the issue of restitution under local statutes. However, the procedural law does not differentiate between residents and non-residents when it comes to victims and third-party claimants, thus creating problems regarding witness attendance and the taking of admissible evidence. 87 Further, the criminal networks and politicians who control State and legal authorities in some of the countries of origin will continue to facilitate illicit financial flows unless destination countries recognize their 82 83 84 85 86 87 Emile van der Does de Willebois and others, The Puppet Masters: How the Corrupt Use Legal Structures to Hide Stolen Assets and What To Do About It, Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative (Washington, D.C., World Bank, 2011) available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/ 784961468152973030/The-puppet-masters-how-the-corrupt-use-legal-structures-to-hide-stolenassets-and-what-to-do-about-it; and OECD, Better Policies for Development 2014, p. 27. See the response of the European Union to the questionnaire. See, for example, the response of Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky to the questionnaire and Human Rights Council resolution 31/22. Resolution 236 adopted by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights on 23 April 2013, available at www.achpr.org/sessions/53rd/resolutions/236/. Response of Jamaica to the questionnaire. Response of Jamaica to the questionnaire. 17