A/HRC/28/60 F. Use of repatriated illicit funds 42. Finally, a human rights approach to asset recovery has to consider policy implications relating to the use of returned illicit funds. StAR has pointed out that the use of returned assets is the sovereign decision of the country that recovers its stolen property, but concluded that “countries that have embraced a policy of openness and transparency in the design of arrangements for the management of returned assets have benefited from this approach”.37 43. The Independent Expert supports that view. In his estimation, respect for and adherence to the human rights principles of transparency, accountability and participation is a critical factor in ensuring the prudent use of repatriated illicit funds. He further endorses the view that “decisions over resources allocation cannot be made behind closed doors, but publicly and openly, with due attention to civil society’s demands. In some cases, lack of transparency and participation in the allocation decisions can end up in the use of the recovered assets to ends different from those sought by human rights principles” (A/HRC/19/42, para. 30). As the study by the High Commissioner underscored, since “recovered resources are not foreseen or public income included in the budget, States must allocate them in accordance with their obligation to devote the maximum of available resources to the fulfilment of economic, social, and cultural rights” (ibid., para. 28). 44. In transitional countries, returned illicit assets may also help States to fulfil their obligations to provide reparation to victims of human rights violations of a previous regime. This is particularly the case if returned illicit funds derive from assets controlled by politically exposed persons who are alleged to have been directly or indirectly responsible for past human rights violations. While not a comprehensive solution to the problem of financing transitional justice initiatives and reparation programmes, recovered assets have for example been used in Peru for anti-corruption and transitional justice measures, including truth-seeking and reparations.38 The Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, published in September 2014, a best practice compilation for the management of recovered assets, drawing on international experiences.39 45. It is important that asset recovery efforts are viewed as one of several efforts that States must make in order to comply with their human rights obligations. As the High Commissioner for Human Rights has underscored, those “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” (A/HRC/19/42, para. 24). 37 38 39 16 StAR Initiative, “Stolen Asset Recovery – Management of returned assets: Policy considerations” (Washington, D.C., 2009), p. xi. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Rule-of-law tools for PostConflict States: Reparations programmes (New York and Geneva, 2008) and Ruben Carranza, “Plunder and Pain: Should Transitional Justice Engage with Corruption and Economic Crimes?” in The International Journal of Transitional Justice, vol. 2, No. 3 (2008), pp. 310–330. Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, “How to best utilize our stolen assets? Best practices for the management of recovered assets” (Cairo, September 2014), available from http://www.eipr.org/sites/default/files/reports/pdf/asset_recovery_e.pdf.