CIVICUS discusses a recent United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council resolution on corruption and human rights with Betina Pasteknik, the UNCAC Coalition’s Head of Operations and Working Groups and co-chair of its Working Group on Human Rights and Corruption. The UNCAC Coalition, which promotes implementation of the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), is a global network of over 400 civil society organisations (CSOs) and experts in more than 120 countries.

The resolution explicitly links anticorruption efforts with human rights protection and provides states with practical guidelines, potentially transforming how international bodies address the connected challenges of corruption and human rights violations. Ahead of the UNCAC Conference of States Parties in December, civil society continues to urge reforms to strengthen transparency participation and follow-up mechanisms in anticorruption efforts.

How does corruption undermine human rights?

Corruption and human rights violations are deeply interconnected challenges that often reinforce each other. Corruption, whether in the form of bribery, embezzlement or nepotism, undermines the rule of law, weakens democratic institutions and erodes the transparency and accountability mechanisms essential for safeguarding rights.

The human rights impacts of corruption are tangible and far-reaching. Corruption can impact on people directly, such as when a person is asked to pay a bribe to obtain a basic public service such as education or healthcare, denying them equal access to essential services. It can also affect people indirectly: for example, when authorities accept bribes to illegally authorise large-scale deforestation, this can violate the rights to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment and to food, adequate housing and health of nearby communities. These harms are often multiplied for vulnerable groups, such as Indigenous peoples whose lands and livelihoods may be destroyed, or excluded communities that face additional barriers when public officials demand bribes to access the judicial system.

Corruption undermines society as a whole. It diverts resources needed for the progressive realisation of cultural, economic and social rights, fuels inequality and corrodes the foundations of the rule of law. When public funds meant for hospitals, schools or housing projects are siphoned off through corrupt practices, the resulting deprivation is both a governance failure and a human rights violation.

Traditionally, however, corruption and human rights have been addressed as separate issues. Anticorruption frameworks such as the UNCAC have mostly concentrated on the adoption of preventive measures, criminalisation provisions and international cooperation mechanisms, while human rights frameworks have focused on protecting and restoring the rights of individuals and communities affected by abuses. In reality, both share the same core principles – accountability, participation and transparency – and are most effective when pursued together.

What makes the recent resolution significant?

The Human Rights Council has addressed corruption and human rights since the 1990s, with a key milestone in 2013 when Morocco introduced the first resolution on the negative impacts of corruption on human rights. However, the 2025 resolution marks a turning point, shifting the focus from theory to practice. It tasks the Advisory Committee with preparing a comprehensive study to develop practical guidelines on implementing existing procedural and substantive human rights obligations of states in preventing and combating corruption.

The resolution underscores the need for policy coherence across the UN system, linking Geneva, Vienna and New York processes. Crucially, it affirms the importance of creating a safe and enabling environment for civil society, journalists, prosecutors, whistleblowers and others involved in anticorruption efforts, and of protecting them from reprisals and threats linked to their work. This is particularly significant given that civil society space is shrinking in many countries, with activists and journalists working on anticorruption being harassed, criminalised and silenced, often under the pretext of national security and counterterrorism. These actions violate international human rights law and contradict the spirit of the UNCAC: its article 13 explicitly recognises the vital role of civil society.

By directly addressing these gaps and committing to practical, operational guidance, the resolution lays the groundwork for a new era in which anticorruption and human rights agendas are conceptually linked and practically aligned. This represents a major opportunity to move from abstract recognition to actionable change.

What role did civil society play in shaping the resolution?

Civil society played a pivotal role. We co-organised side events alongside states and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to raise awareness within the Human Rights Council of the vital role it must play on this issue. A selected group of experts from the UNCAC Coalition Working Group on Human Rights and Corruption worked for months to push the agenda forward, including by drafting an open letter endorsed by 368 CSOs and experts from 107 countries. The letter called for the adoption of a human rights-based approach to anticorruption efforts, urging states to go beyond rhetoric and take proactive, rights-focused measures. Without the backing of so many experts around the world, we would not have achieved the same outcome.

Advocacy in Geneva offered a stark contrast to our usual work in Vienna. In the Vienna-based UNCAC process, civil society participation is often inconsistent, discretionary and severely restricted. Civil society is not allowed to observe negotiations or attend meetings of UNCAC subsidiary bodies, even when those meetings discuss civil society participation. The participation of civil society in UNCAC country reviews is optional, despite the clear intent of article 13. This lack of inclusion, combined with inadequate transparency provisions, undermines trust and weakens the UNCAC Convention and its Implementation Review Mechanism.

In contrast, human rights processes in Geneva offer a more advanced and structured environment for civil society engagement, with accessible public information and regular opportunities for participation. This is why it’s vital to address corruption in Geneva forums. While the formal mandate on corruption lies in Vienna, with the UN Office on Drugs and Crime as the guardian of the UNCAC, corruption is often a root cause of many human rights violations, so we must bring our voices to the spaces where human rights issues are addressed – which happen to be spaces where we are welcomed and can influence outcomes.

What needs to happen next for meaningful change?

The next immediate step is for civil society and academia to provide input to the Advisory Committee once it starts work on its study. Civil society must seize the opportunity to ensure the study reflects lived realities, practical challenges and innovative solutions from the ground. It is also essential to ensure that the study’s recommendations translate into tangible action at the UN level as well as regionally and nationally.

We need coherent, harmonised approaches for civil society participation in the UN across all forums. This is particularly urgent given the ongoing negotiations over the second phase of the Implementation Review Mechanism, which will be decided at the UNCAC Conference of States Parties in Qatar in December. This is a critical opportunity to integrate lessons from human rights mechanisms, particularly the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review process, into UNCAC processes, ensuring that civil society is viewed not as an obstacle but as an indispensable partner in combating corruption and safeguarding human rights.

To strengthen the Implementation Review Mechanism, the UNCAC Coalition is calling for a series of reforms. First, we call for enhanced transparency through the publication of review timelines, stakeholder engagement opportunities, all submissions and full country review reports, alongside increased efficiency through a publicly updated global calendar of country reviews and explaining delays and remedies. Second, we want meaningful involvement of civil society, academia, journalists and the private sector in all stages of the review process, with them allowed to participate in working group meetings. Third, we call for the establishment of a structured follow-up process to monitor implementation of review recommendations annually, including technical assistance needs, while assessing real-world impact by focusing on whether UNCAC measures are being implemented in practice, with adequate resources and independent oversight. Finally, we urge coordination with other relevant UN bodies and monitoring mechanisms, so peer reviewers can draw on the findings of other anticorruption mechanisms and relevant human rights or development reviews.

At the same time, human rights mechanisms must be strategically leveraged to address corruption as a fundamental rights issue. Meaningful change would mean stronger protections for activists, journalists and whistleblowers, gender-sensitive and inclusive anticorruption strategies and mechanisms that ensure stolen resources are recovered and used to fulfil human rights. Ultimately, anticorruption should not be an abstract legal agenda. It must directly improve people’s lives, reduce inequality and safeguard democratic space.