A/HRC/25/52 26. The repatriation of stolen assets makes available additional resources for development activities. The level of impact repatriated assets can have on human rights is however unclear, largely due to the fact that there is a lack of systematic information on the effectiveness of repatriated funds in reducing poverty in the countries of origin.30 In addition, the evidence from successful cases of asset repatriation indicates that utilization of those funds to reduce poverty depends on factors such as political will and assignment to priority areas.31 27. Nevertheless, it can be argued that repatriated assets have the potential to enhance the resources available to States to fund programmes required for the promotion and protection of human rights. According to the World Bank, every $100 million in stolen assets recovered could fund first-line treatment for over 600,000 persons with HIV/AIDS for a year, or some 250,000 water connections for poor households, or full immunization for 4 million children.32 D. The need for a human rights-based approach 28. It is important to consider efforts to tackle the problem of illicit financial flows and recover stolen assets as part of several efforts that States must make in order to comply with their human rights obligations, including the obligations to provide international assistance and cooperation (A/HRC/19/42 and Corr.1, para. 23) and to utilize the maximum available resources for the realization of human rights. 29. Although the repatriation of funds of illicit origin to the countries of origin offers an opportunity for the Governments of those countries to invest in infrastructure and social programmes that ensure that the full range of human rights are respected, protected and fulfilled, the Independent Expert accepts that not all returned funds would automatically be channelled to human rights since there are other priorities, such as infrastructure. There is also the possibility of mismanagement, misappropriation33 and Government profligacy which could erode any positive human rights outcomes or even result in negative human rights outcomes. 30. In view of the fact that States may not necessarily have the capacity or political will, and that funds may be mismanaged or misappropriated, the challenge is to ensure efficient, accountable and transparent use of such assets. This underscores the importance of a human rights-based approach to dealing with recovered stolen assets (see A/HRC/19/42 and Corr.1). In that regard, the Independent Expert considers that a human rights-based approach, with its emphasis on the key human rights principles of non-discrimination, participation, transparency and accountability, could ensure that returned assets are spent in a manner that reflects the public will, meets the needs of society and promotes human rights, in particular of the marginalized groups.34 31. A review of some case studies concerning the utilization of repatriated funds would seem to support this view. The studies indicate that the prudent and effective use of recovered assets to fund poverty alleviation programmes requires robust oversight 30 31 32 33 34 10 Nawaz, “Impact of international asset recovery”, p. 3. See Jimu, “Managing proceeds of asset recovery”. World Bank and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Fact Sheet on Asset Recovery, available from http://go.worldbank.org/8VPQP4KJI0. Studies show that a lack of safeguards can lead to funds being misappropriated again. See, for example, Jimu, “Managing Proceeds of Asset Recovery”, p. 16. International Bar Association, Tax Abuses, pp. 148–149.