A/HRC/28/60 Slovenia, and, during 2014, Ireland and Greece.33 An analysis of whistle-blower legislation in the European Union showed that national legislation frequently falls short of international standards or best practice. In November 2013 only four countries had legal frameworks for whistle-blower protection that Transparency International considered advanced.34 The Independent Expert hopes that a new recommendation adopted on 30 April 2014 by the Council of Europe will strengthen the protection of whistle-blowers. Their protection is, however, a worldwide concern, as indicated by reports of the Implementation Review Group of the Convention and of anti-corruption organizations.35 In addition, the protection of persons exposing tax abuses or evasion who may not be able to rely on the protection of the Convention needs to be strengthened. E. Due process in asset recovery and criminal matters 40. Human rights are also relevant for the seizure and freezing of the proceeds of corruption or other criminal activities. That includes due process rights in criminal or civil law matters against persons presumed to be responsible for corruption, tax evasion or other related criminal conduct and ensuring the independence of authorities charged with investigating and prosecuting crimes, including ensuring that asset freezing and forfeiture does not deprive persons suspected of, or investigated for, corruption of the enjoyment of essential core minimum levels of social, economic and cultural rights. While the right to property, contained in article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in several regional human rights instruments, does not protect stolen assets from recovery, no one may be arbitrarily deprived of that right. The Independent Expert is also concerned about reports that governments have occasionally used charges of tax evasion or corruption against former members of the ruling elite, political opponents, dissidents or human rights defenders to criminalize them. Special procedures have also sent communications on behalf of such individuals.36 41. It is also notable that some provisions of the Convention against Corruption have been contested on human rights grounds. Article 31, paragraph 8, of the Convention provides that an offender must demonstrate the lawful origin not only of the alleged proceeds of crime but also of other property liable to confiscation. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has noted that “similar provisions were analysed in a set of precedents that established the conditions that must be met in order not to violate dueprocess rights. Such precedents held that the right to be presumed innocent is not an absolute right, and that legal presumptions in criminal law are not per se restrictive to such right as long as States take into account the importance of what is at stake, and respect the right to defence” (A/HRC/19/42, para. 46). 33 34 35 36 Ibid., and Transparency International, press releases “Transparency International welcomes Protected Disclosures Act 2014” (15 July 2014), and Transparency International: “Legal protection for citizens who denounce big corruption cases” (23 April 2014), available from www.transparency.org. Mark Worth: “Whistleblowing in Europe: legal protections for whistleblowers in Europe” (Berlin, Transparency International, 2013). Council of Europe, Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)7 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the protection of whistleblowers; Transparency International, “Fighting corruption in South Asia: building accountability” (Berlin, 2014), pp. 12–13. See for example communications MNG 1/2012 of 21 May 2012, reported in A/HRC/21/49, and PRK 1/2013 of 17 December 2013, reported in A/HRC/26/21. 15