CORRUPTION AS A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1107918


CORRUPTION AS A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Julio Bacio-Terracino*

January 2008




Abstract
In  recent  years,  scholars  have  begun  to  examine  the  links  between  corruption  and  human
rights  and  have widely  held  that  corruption  violates  human  rights. However, most  of  such
assertions fail to show in a detailed manner the ways in which the rights are infringed on by
different corrupt practices. Although all corrupt practices may in the long run affect a human
right, this is not synonymous with a violation of rights. This work analyses when and how a
corrupt practice entails a human rights violation by examining how the most common corrupt
practices may violate several fundamental human rights. As this work reveals certain corrupt
practices are only indirectly linked to a violation of human rights. Corruption in these cases is
a factor fuelling human rights violations and can only be distantly linked to the infringement
of human rights. On the contrary, other corrupt practices may constitute a violation of human
rights  in  and  of  themselves. As  evidenced  through  several  examples,  corruption  is  directly
linked  to  a violation of  human  rights when  the  corrupt  act  is  expressly  used  as  a means  to
violate the right, or when the corrupt practice is an essential factor in the chain of events that
eventually violates  the human  right. The aim of  this paper  is  to provide a “model analysis”
that can be applied more generally  to cases of  corruption  in order  to establish  the extent  to
which  they  concern  a  violation  of  human  rights.  In  addition,  understanding  corruption  as  a
violation of human rights serves to add a new perspective to those working for human rights
and those fighting against corruption. 













* Ph.D. Candidate, International Law, Graduate Institute of International and Development
Studies, Geneva [baciote2@hei.unige.ch]. This paper was originally written by the author for
the International Council on Human Rights Policy, which is currently preparing a research
project on the subject of corruption and human rights [www.ichrp.org/en/projects/131]. The
author wishes to thank Magdalena Sepúlveda for her helpful comments on earlier drafts. 

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1107918
  2


TABLE OF CONTENTS


PURPOSE OF THIS WORK................................................................................................................................3

THE RELEVANCE OF LINKING CORRUPTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS ...............................................4
HUMAN RIGHTS PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FORA AND MECHANISMS TO FIGHT CORRUPTION................................. 4
SOCIAL EMPOWERMENT AND PUBLIC PRESSURE ................................................................................................ 4
A HUMAN RIGHTS APPROACH MAY CIRCUMVENT LEGALISTIC DIFFICULTIES ................................................... 4
TO FIGHT CORRUPTION CONSTITUTES A STATE HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATION................................................... 4
CORRUPTION IS A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE ............................................................................................................ 4

WHAT IS UNDERSTOOD BY “CORRUPTION”? ..........................................................................................5
CORRUPT ACTS ................................................................................................................................................... 6
Bribery........................................................................................................................................................... 6
Embezzlement ................................................................................................................................................ 7
Trading in Influence ...................................................................................................................................... 7
Abuse of Functions ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Illicit Enrichment........................................................................................................................................... 7

THE IMPACT OF CORRUPTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS .............................................................................8

CORRUPTION AS A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS...........................................................................10
CORRUPTION AS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND TO AN EFFECTIVE REMEDY ..................... 12
CORRUPTION AS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD........................................................................... 14
CORRUPTION AS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO WORK................................................................................... 16
CORRUPTION AS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION.................................................. 17
CORRUPTION AS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO FOOD .................................................................................... 19
CORRUPTION AS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO WATER ................................................................................. 20
CORRUPTION AS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE HOUSING............................................................ 22
CORRUPTION AS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO HEALTH ................................................................................ 23
CORRUPTION AS A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION .......................................................................... 27

EMBEZZLEMENT OF FUNDS DESTINED TO SOCIAL PROGRAMMES AS A VIOLATION OF
HUMAN RIGHTS............................................................................................................................................... 31

CORRUPTION RESULTS IN DISCRIMINATION........................................................................................33






  3


Purpose of This Work

In  recent  years,  scholars  have  begun  to  examine  the  links  between  corruption  and  human
rights.  This  has  originated  mostly  as  a  result  of  shifting  perspectives,  with  corruption
currently  being  considered  a  problem  that  affects  the  individual. Corruption  has  long  been
regarded as a problem of an administrative nature with the focus placed on public officials. It
then  grew  to  be  also  considered  an  economic  problem,  as  it made  commercial  transactions
more expensive. But more  recently, corruption has begun  to become  regarded as a problem
with  serious  social  implications.  It  is  considered  to  be  a  problem  related  to  the  design  and
functioning  of  social  institutions  that  threatens  the  social  fabric.  A  social  approach  to
corruption places emphasis on the individuals that suffer its consequences. As a result, it has
become  evident  that  corruption  has  an  undeniable  connection  with  individuals  and  their
inherent human rights. 

Corruption may  have  a widespread  and  long-term  impact  on  human  rights. However,  this
work concentrates solely on one specific impact: when corruption violates human rights. The
present  paper  aims  at  describing  the  underlying  conceptual  framework  when  establishing
corruption as a violation of human rights. To that end, several examples of corrupt practices
that  violate  human  rights will  be  given  in  order  to  illustrate  the  notion  of  corruption  as  a
human  rights  violation.  The  aim  is  to  provide  a  “model  analysis”  that  can  be  used  to
determine if other corruption cases also constitute a violation of human rights. 

As  evidenced  in  the  next  section,  understanding  corruption  as  a  violation  of  human  rights
serves mostly to add a new perspective to those working for human rights and those fighting
against corruption.


  4


The Relevance of Linking Corruption and Human Rights


Human Rights Provide Additional Fora and Mechanisms to Fight Corruption
A  clear  understanding  of  the  impact  of  corruption  on  human  rights will  open  the  door  to
existing  human  rights  machinery  on  which  to  base  further  action  against  corruption.
Identifying certain corrupt practices as human rights violations might result in discussing the
problem  of  corruption  at  human  rights  fora  which  would  add  further  channels  of
communication  and  new  players  to  the  combat  against  corruption.  Additionally,  certain
typical  human  rights  mechanisms  (international  human  rights  courts,  U.N.  complaints
mechanisms, or national human rights institutions) might prove useful to also remedy corrupt
practices that violate human rights.


Social Empowerment and Public Pressure
If corruption is perceived as a violation of human rights it will raise awareness among people
of the consequences of corruption on individual interests and how detrimental a minor corrupt
practice may be for victims and the population generally. This might engage large sectors of
the  citizenry  into  strong  supporters  in  fighting  corruption.  Moreover,  if  certain  everyday
corrupt practices are seen as a violation of human rights it will empower victims of corruption
to look for venues for redress.


A Human Rights Approach May Circumvent Legalistic Difficulties
Corrupt  practices  that  may  not  necessarily  be  illegal  and  thus  cannot  be  counterattacked
through law enforcement can be combated through the human rights machinery. For instance,
in many  judicial  systems nepotism or political  favouritism  are not  considered  corruption  in
strict  legal  terms,  i.e.  it  is not prohibited by  the  law. However, such practice may result  in a
violation of the rights of political participation and right to equal access to public service. In
these cases human rights constitute a way out from strict legal rules. If a corrupt practice does
not  satisfy  legal  requirements  it  may  still  result  in  a  human  rights  violation  and  if  it  is
regarded, understood and explained in terms of a human rights violation such practice may be
overruled. 


To Fight Corruption Constitutes a State Human Rights Obligation
If corruption in many circumstances violates human rights it is hence required from states to
fight corruption in order to ensure to everyone the enjoyment of those rights. 


Corruption is a Human Rights Issue
Corruption is not foreign to the human rights movement as it has the potential of undermining
the enjoyment and full realisation of human rights. Promotion and protection of human rights
needs to have an anti-corruption aspect.




  5


What Is Understood by “Corruption”?

There is no universally accepted definition of corruption. There is a tendency to use the term
“corruption” loosely as a catch-all term. There is also considerable disagreement over which
specific acts constitute corruption.  Most people would agree that the embezzlement of public
assets or the acceptance of bribes by a public official entails corruption, but if an employee of
a  private  company  is  bribed  by  a  contractor  of  the  company,  is  this  also  a  question  of
corruption? Most would still regard it as a corrupt act, but there exists a minority which holds
that  the  term “corruption”  is  limited  to acts  that  take place within  the public sector. A more
extreme view holds that corruption also encompasses cases such as when office supplies in a
company go “missing,” or when a public employee claims to be sick but goes on vacation.

Such  differing  ideas  about  what  constitutes  corrupt  practices  have  resulted  in  different
definitions of corruption. Today, probably the most used definition is the one adopted by the
non-governmental  organization  Transparency  International:  “corruption  is  the  abuse  of
entrusted power for private gain.” 

It is important to note that corruption can also take place solely within the private sector. It is
now widely accepted  that corrupt practices within  the private  sector do  in  fact have a place
within  the  spectrum of corruption. Most organisations currently working  to  fight corruption
deal with corrupt practices in the private sector, mainly with the understanding that in order to
effectively  combat  corruption  and  design  appropriate  policies,  it  is  necessary  to  include
private entities. 

Most importantly, there is a significant connection between corruption, human rights, and the
private  sector. The Special Representative of  the Secretary-General on  the  Issue of Human
Rights  and  Transnational  Corporations  and  Other  Business  Enterprises  has  mentioned
corruption  as part of  the  abuses on human  rights  committed by  transnational  corporations.1
Undoubtedly, corruption is relevant to the relationship between transnational corporations and
human  rights.  In  this  context,  the  notion  of Corporate  Social Responsibility  is  increasingly
taking into account the problem of corruption. For example, the CSR initiative of the United
Nations, the Global Compact, contains an Anti-Corruption Principle: “Business should work
against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery.” This initiative focuses on
providing  anti-corruption  background  information,  as well  as  providing  guidance  and  other
tools  to  participating  businesses  and  organisations  around  the  world.  Companies  that
participate in this initiative must make anti-corruption part of their strategy, culture, and dayto-
day operations.  

Privatisation  is another  issue  related  to  the private  sector  that has  important  implications on
corruption and human rights. Through privatisation, public functions such as health, transport,
or  telecommunications  are  put  in  private  hands  with  the  necessary  transfer  of  budgetary
allocations  and  regulatory  powers.  Experience  has  shown  that  privatisations  are  prone  to
corruption, thus any definition of corruption should include the private sector.

Hence, in general corruption is understood as the abuse of entrusted power both in the private
and  public  sectors  for  private  gain.  Yet,  in  this  work,  a much more  specific  definition  is
                                                
1 United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Interim Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-
General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, U.N.
Doc. E/CN.4/2006/97, 22 February 2006, para. 25-27.
  6


needed. Only by specifying the wide definition of corruption can one expect to analyse when
and how different corrupt practices entail a violation of human rights. Hence, it is necessary
to have recourse to a legal definition of corruption. 

In  the  legal  context,  the  commonly  understood  definition  of  corruption  as  “the  abuse  of
entrusted  power  for  private  gain”  should  be  translated  into  “the  illegal  abuse  of  entrusted
power  for  private  gain.”  In  other  words,  the  legal  definition  of  corruption  adds  a  further
condition, which is the unlawful abuse of the entrusted power. This means that the person in a
position of power who is accused of corruption must be acting contrary to the law. 

Although  every  country  in  the  world  criminalises  corruption  in  some  form,  both  at  the
international and national  levels corruption as such  in  legal  terms does not exist as a crime.
Corruption is generally used as a term to group certain criminal acts which correspond to the
general notion of an abuse of entrusted power. 

International conventions against corruption reflect this, as they do not define and criminalise
corruption, but rather enumerate criminal acts which amount to corruption. The best definition
of corruption (because it is at the same time broad in scope but detailed in content) is the one
provided  by  the    Southern  African Development  Community  Protocol  against  Corruption:
“‘Corruption’  means  any  act  referred  to  in  Article  3  and  includes  bribery  or  any  other
behaviour  in  relation  to  persons  entrusted  with  responsibilities  in  the  public  and  private
sectors which violates  their duties as public officials, private employees,  independent agents
or other  relationships of  that kind  and  aimed  at  obtaining undue  advantage of  any  kind  for
themselves or others.”


Corrupt Acts

There  is no one single comprehensive  list of acts  that  is universally accepted as constituting
corruption. National laws vary on which criminal acts are considered corrupt acts. However,
on  the  basis  of  the  latest  and  broadest  international  anti-corruption  convention,  namely  the
United Nations Convention against Corruption  (UNCAC), one can gain an  idea of what has
generally been accepted as “corrupt acts.” The following is the list of core corrupt acts. It is
important to note, however, that this is not an exhaustive list. Progressive development could
enlarge this list to include other acts in the future. 

Bribery 
The  most  representative  act  of  corruption  is  bribery.  It  may  be  defined  as  the  promise,
offering or giving,  to a public official, or  the  solicitation or acceptance by a public official,
directly  or  indirectly,  of  an  undue  advantage,  for  the  official  himself  or  another  person  or
entity, in order that the official act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his official duties.

There are however several different forms of bribery. The act of offering a bribe is commonly
referred to as active bribery and the act of accepting the bribe as passive bribery. In addition,
there  are  differences  in  the  definition  of  bribery whether  it  involves  a  national  or  foreign
public official, and whether  it  takes place with  the public sector or solely within  the private
sector.  The  aforementioned  definition  refers  to  bribery  of  national  public  officials.  The
bribery  of  foreign  public  officials  and  officials  of  public  international  organisations,  also
called transnational bribery, adds the condition that the undue advantage given to the official
must  be  in  the  context  of  international  business.  If  the  act  of  bribery  is  committed  in  the
  7


course  of  economic,  financial  or  commercial  activities  and  solely  involves  persons  in  the
private sector, this is referred to as bribery in the private sector. 

Embezzlement
A  common  corrupt  practice  is  embezzlement  of  public  property.  It may  be  defined  as  the
misappropriation or other diversion by  a public official,  for purposes unrelated  to  those  for
which the assets were intended, for his benefit or for the benefit of another person or entity, of
any property, public or private funds or securities or any other thing of value entrusted to the
public official by virtue of his position. The embezzlement of property can also occur in the
private sector in the course of economic, financial or commercial activities. 

Trading in Influence
The promise, offering or giving to a public official or any other person, or the solicitation or
acceptance  by  a  public  official  or  any  other  person,  directly  or  indirectly,  of  an  undue
advantage in order that the public official or the person abuse his real or supposed influence
with a view  to obtaining  from an administration or public authority an undue advantage  for
the  original  instigator  of  the  act  or  for  any  other  person,  is  called  trading  in  influence. For
some  it  is  irrelevant whether or not  the  influence  is ultimately exerted and whether or not  it
leads to the intended result. Trading in influence is also commonly divided into its active form
(giving an advantage in exchange for influence) and its passive form (requesting or accepting
an advantage in exchange for influence). 

Abuse of Functions
The abuse of functions or position is referred to as the performance of, or failure to perform
an  act,  in  violation  of  laws,  by  a  public  official  in  the  discharge  of  his  functions,  for  the
purpose of obtaining an undue advantage for himself or for another person or entity. 

Illicit Enrichment
The corrupt act of illicit enrichment may be defined as a significant increase in the assets of a
public  official  that  he  cannot  reasonably  explain  in  relation  to  his  lawful  income.  Illicit
enrichment  is  a  particularly  controversial  act  of  corruption  because  according  to  some
opinions,  the  criminalisation  of  such  an  act  goes  against  the  principle  of  presumption  of
innocence and reverses the burden of proof. For this reason, when anti-corruption conventions
ask  states  to  criminalise  such  an  act  it  is  always  stipulated under  the  clause  “subject  to  the
State’s constitution and the fundamental principles of its legal system.” 


  8


The Impact of Corruption on Human Rights

There is agreement that the consequences of corrupt practices are widespread and negative for
our society. Evidently, corruption has  the potential of undermining  the enjoyment of human
rights in all areas, be they economic, social, cultural, civil, or political. However, the impact
of corruption on human  rights will vary  in  each  case. While many corrupt practices violate
human rights, as it will be described below, in many cases corruption has a harmful effect on
human  rights but does not constitute a violation. A corrupt election procedure may  result  in
political instability in the form of protests, riots and subsequent suppression of human rights
in order to restore stability. The human rights violations that take place after the election are
originated by a corrupt practice but are independent from it. 

In many  cases  corruption will  lead  to  human  rights  violations  but will  not  itself  violate  a
human  right. Corruption  in  these  cases  is  a  factor  fuelling  human  rights  violations  but  can
only  be  distantly  linked  to  the  infringement  upon  human  rights.  For  example,  there  are
numerous  cases  where  people  investigating  or  reporting  corruption  cases,  so  called
whistleblowers, are  silenced  through harassment,  threat,  imprisonment  and even killings.  In
such  cases  the  right  to  liberty,  the  right  to  freedom of  expression,  and  the  right  to  freedom
from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment may be violated. However, corruption
in these cases functions as a remote cause of the violation as it is corruption that triggered the
work of the whistleblowers. Yet in such cases, the human rights of the whistleblowers are not
violated through corrupt practices. 

It is important to distinguish cases where corruption is at the origin of subsequent violations
of  human  rights  from  cases where  corruption  is  itself  part  of  the  violation  or  a means  to
achieve a violation.
























  9


States’  Obligation  to  Take  Steps  to  the  Maximum  of  their  Available  Resources  with  a  View  to
Progressively Achieve the Full Realisation of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR Art. 2.1)

One  particular  obligation  arising  from  the  International  Covenant  on  Economic,  Social  and  Cultural  Rights
(ICESCR) merits a  separate analysis because  it  relates  to all economic,  social and cultural  rights. When  states
become parties to the ICESCR, they accept a general legal obligation which relates to all rights in that Covenant.
States must take steps to the maximum of their available resources with a view to progressively achieve the full
realisation of the economic, social, and cultural rights recognised in the ICESCR. In other words, states accept
two  obligations:  to  immediately  take  steps  to  progressively  ensure  economic,  social  and  cultural  rights  to
everyone under  their  jurisdiction,  and  to devote  the maximum of  available  resources  towards  this  aim. States
must take deliberate, concrete, and targeted steps towards the goal of full realisation of the relevant rights. 

The obligation to take steps and to devote the maximum of available resources is an immediate one. To this end,
states  must  adopt  a  range  of  different  measures,  such  as  enacting  relevant  legislation,  providing  judicial
remedies,  and  taking  administrative,  financial,  educational or  social measures. States have  to move  as quickly
and  effectively  as possible  towards  the  full  realisation of  economic,  social,  and  cultural  rights. Any deliberate
retrogressive measures in regards to the realisation of these rights would need to be justified in the context of the
use of maximum available resources. 

Corruption  reveals  that  the  state  is  not  taking  steps  in  the  right  direction. When  funds  are  stolen  by  corrupt
officials or when  access  to health  care,  education,  and housing  is dependent on bribes  the  state  resources  are
clearly not being used to their maximum towards the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights. The UN
Special Rapporteur on  the Right  to Health has specifically  referred  to  this and held  that when a  state does not
reach  its  goals  in order  to progressively  achieve  the  realisation of  the  right  to health due  to  corruption  in  the
health sector, then the state has failed to comply with its obligations concerning the right to health.2 The United
Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has referred to the fact that corruption has a negative effect on the
level of resources available for the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and thus states
cannot  comply  with  their  obligation  to  implement  economic,  social  and  cultural  rights  of  children,  to  the
maximum  extent  of  available  resources  as  provided  under  Article  4  of  the  Convention.3  Indeed,  the
embezzlement of  funds by  a public official  at  a ministerial  level would  result  in  less  availability of  economic
resources to assign, for example, to sectors of law enforcement meant to protect children from human trafficking,
sexual exploitation and labour. 
                                                
2 U.N. Econ. & Soc. Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the
Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health, Paul Hunt, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/48, 3 March
2006, para. 40.
3 Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child:
Tajikistan, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.136, 23 October 2000, para. 5; Committee on the Rights of the Child,
Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Kenya, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.160, 7
November 2001, para. 9; Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations of the Committee on
the Rights of the Child: Georgia, U.N. Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.124, 28 June 2000, para. 18 and 19.
  10


Corruption as a Violation of Human Rights

It has been widely held that corruption violates human rights. However, most of the time such
assertions fail to show in a detailed manner the ways in which the rights are infringed on by
different  corrupt  practices.  Such  claims  are  overtly  general  and  seem  to  hold  that  every
corrupt  situation affects a human need and  thus violates human  rights. Although all corrupt
practices may in the long run affect a human right, this is not synonymous with a violation of
human rights. To avoid such generalisations it is pertinent to analyse when and how a corrupt
practice entails a human rights violation.

All individuals are endowed with human rights, and all states are obliged to ensure that their
populations enjoy these rights. In turn, each human right gives rise to specific obligations of
states. For people  to enjoy  their human  rights,  states need  to carry out  these obligations.  In
general,  states  possess  three  types  of  human  rights  obligations. States must  respect,  protect
and fulfil all human rights. The obligation to respect requires states to refrain from interfering
directly or  indirectly with  the enjoyment of human  rights. The obligation  to protect  requires
states to prevent third parties from interfering in any way with the enjoyment of human rights.
States must also fulfil human rights, thus have to take positive measures to assist individuals
and communities in enjoying those rights. 

There is a violation of a human right when an act or omission of a state is not in conformity
with  its  obligation  to  respect,  protect  and  fulfil  the  human  rights  of  persons  under  its
jurisdiction.  However,  to  make  such  an  assessment,  it  is  key  to  determine  what  specific
conduct is required of the state concerning each human right. This will depend on the precise
terms of  the  state’s human  rights obligations, as well as  their  interpretation and application,
which  should  take  into  account  the object  and purpose of  such obligations  and  the  facts of
each particular case. The  term “violation” should only be utilised when a  legal basis and an
identifiable corresponding legal obligation exist. 

It is widely accepted that states have a duty to protect individuals not just against violations of
their  human  rights  by  state  agents,  but  also  against  acts  committed  by  private  persons  or
entities.  Indeed,  in certain cases  states have  to  take positive measures  to ensure  that private
persons or entities do not  impinge on human  rights of  individuals. States could breach  their
human  rights  obligations  where  they  fail  to  take  appropriate  measures  or  to  exercise  due
diligence  to prevent, punish,  investigate or  redress  the harm caused by  such acts by private
persons or entities.

In order to determine if a particular corrupt practice violates a human right it is central to first
identify which actions or omissions are  required  from  the  state  to protect,  respect and  fulfil
that  specific  human  right.  A  clear  understanding  of  the  scope  and  content  of  the  right  is
necessary to identify such state obligations. 

Second,  the  corrupt practice  in question has  to be  analysed  in  the  context of  the  scope  and
content of a human right and if it affects such content in a direct or indirect way and the state
fails  to meet  its  obligation  to  protect,  respect  and  fulfil  the  human  right  one may  refer  to
corruption as violating a human right. 

Corruption  is  directly  in  connection  to  a  violation  of  human  rights when  the  corrupt  act  is
deliberately used as a means to violate the right. Corruption in this case affects the enjoyment
of  the  right.  For  example,  a  bribe  offered  to  a  judge  per  se  affects  the  independence  and
  11


impartiality of that judge and hence the right to a fair trial is violated. In this case the bribe is
specifically used to affect the fairness of a trial. 

In  other  cases,  corruption  directly  violates  a  human  right  by  preventing  individuals  from
having access to such right. Conditionality of access to human rights produces the violation.
When an individual in order to have access to health or education needs to bribe a doctor to
obtain medical  treatment or a  teacher  to be allowed  to attend a class his  right  to health and
education is infringed by corruption. 

In other situations, corruption will be considered  to violate human rights  in an  indirect way.
When a corrupt practice constitutes an essential contributing  factor  in a chain of events  that
eventually  leads  to a violation of a  right corruption can  still be blamed  for violating human
rights. In this case the right is violated by an act that derives from a corrupt act. But, the act of
corruption constitutes a necessary condition for the violation. For example, the use of bribery
to  influence  public  officials’  decisions  to  allow  the  illegal  importation  of  toxic waste  from
other countries is a common practice around the world. If a corrupt Minister allows the illicit
dumping of toxic waste in a place close to a residential area the rights to life and health of the
people  in  the area  are violated. Yet,  the  rights are violated by  the act of allowing  the  illicit
dumping of toxic wastes. The rights to life and health in this example are not directly violated
by  the bribe  received by  the corrupt Minister. What violates  the human  rights  is an act  that
derives  from  such  corrupt  act. But,  the  act  of  corruption was  a  necessary  condition  for  the
violation. Without the bribe, the official would not have allowed the illicit dumping of toxic
wastes. Hence, even when there is not a direct connection, corruption may nonetheless be an
essential contributing  factor  in a chain of events  that eventually  leads  to a violation, and as
such corruption indirectly violates human rights.

The  following  sections describe how  the most common corrupt practices may violate either
directly or indirectly several fundamental human rights. 

Summary Review of a Human Rights Violation

1.  Identify the corrupt practice

•  Establish what corrupt act is involved (bribery, embezzlement, etc.)
•  Identify perpetrator, victim and harm to the victim

2.  Identify if the harm to the victim affects his/her human rights

•  Study the scope and content of the human rights in question
•  Establish what were the state’s obligations concerning the human right in question

3.  Evaluate if the corrupt practice constitutes a violation of a human right

•  Determine if the state provides to the victim venues for redress and remedies for such harm
•  Establish if the harm suffered by the victim reflects the failure of the state to respect, protect, or fulfil
the human rights in question
•  Establish how direct is the connection between the corrupt act and harm suffered by the victim on the
one hand, and  the content of  the human  right and  the obligation  required  from  the state on  the other
hand
•  Does  the  corrupt  act  itself  go  against  the  content  of  the  human  right  and  simultaneously
reflects itself the failure of the state to meet its obligations concerning that right? 
•  Does the corrupt act lead to other actions by other actors that eventually affect a human right?
In  this  case,  is  the  corrupt  act  an  essential  factor  in  the  chain  of  events  that  lead  to  the
infringement of a human right?
  12


Corruption as a Violation of the Right to a Fair Trial and to an Effective Remedy

The right  to a fair  trial under Article 14 of  the  International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) is composed of a broad range of rights which provide for a fair, effective and
efficient administration of  justice (the  judiciary,  the police, and prosecutors). All  individuals
are entitled to equality before the courts and tribunals, and have the right to a fair and public
hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. 

The relationship between corruption and human rights is particularly relevant with regards to
the right to a fair trial. This is the case because corruption is widespread and systemic in the
administration of justice of several countries. Experience shows that there are many ways in
which corruption can affect the administration of justice and the right to a fair trial. However,
the most immediate way is through bribing judges to obtain a favourable judgment, to speed
up procedures, or to obtain bail – just to name a few examples. In addition, corruption affects
the administration of justice and the right to a fair trial when corrupt acts take place before the
case reaches the courts, mostly at the enforcement level if the police, for example, manipulate
evidence in favour of one of the parties, or at the prosecution level if the prosecutor alters the
facts of the case. 

The most relevant consequence of corruption in the administration of justice is that it renders
a hearing unfair and affects the equality of the parties and the independence and impartiality
of the tribunal. If a judge is bribed by one of the parties to rule in their favour, there is a clear
violation of the right to equality of the party affected. If the right to equality before the courts
and  tribunals  is affected, automatically  the  right  to an  impartial  and  independent  tribunal  is
also infringed upon. When the judge is corrupted to give privilege to one party at the expense
of the other, the tribunal is thus neither impartial nor independent.  

It is important to highlight that tribunals not only have to be impartial, but must also give the
appearance of being  impartial. Thus, as  it happens  in  several countries, when a particularly
tribunal gives the impression of being corrupt and there is a general perception that corruption
is  widespread  and  systemic  in  the  judiciary,  there  is  an  infringement  of  the  right  to  an
impartial and independent tribunal. 

The  independence of  the  tribunal  can be  affected by  corrupt practices  in  another way.  It  is
commonly held that the judiciary must be independent, referring to, inter alia, independence
from  the  executive  and  the  legislature. Although  political  interference  can  come  about  by
threat,  intimidation or other non-corrupt means,  it does also come about  through corruption.
In fact, the independence of the judiciary in general and of a court or tribunal in particular, is
not usually infringed upon through bribery, but by means of trading in influence and abuse of
functions. One example might be of a judge that is appointed by the executive in exchange for
future judgments in accordance to the interests of the executive. In such a case, the currency
of corruption is the judicial post. This might constitute a case of trading in influence. 

Moreover, corruption  in  the process of appointment of  judges may also have a consequence
on  the competence of  judges. Appointments  that should be based on personal qualifications,
moral  authority  and  competence  are  replaced  by  corrupt  interests.  Thus,  if  corruption  is
present  in  the appointment of a  judge,  such a case not only affects  the  independence of  the
judiciary but also its competence. 

  13


As  just  described,  every  person  has  the  right  to  a  minimum  degree  of  quality  of  the
administration of justice. This is expressed through parameters of equality of parties, fairness
of the hearing, and competence, independence and impartiality of the tribunal. These are basic
rights to procedural guarantees to which all human beings are entitled to when they face the
administration  of  justice.  However,  the  right  to  a  fair  trial  also  provides  for  specific
guarantees to protect the accused in criminal procedures. In the determination of any criminal
charge against a person, everyone is entitled to the following guarantees (ICCPR Art. 14(3)):
to  be  informed  about  the  charge  against  them  promptly,  in  detail  and  in  a  language  they
understand; to have adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence; to communicate with
counsel of their own choosing; to be tried without undue delay; to be tried in their presence;
to defend themselves in person or through legal assistance; to examine witnesses against them
and  to make use of  their own witnesses;  to have  the  free assistance of an  interpreter  if  they
cannot  understand  the  language  used  in  court;  and  not  to  be  compelled  to  testify  against
themselves or to confess guilt. 

Also as part of  the  right  to a  fair  trial, everyone has  the  right  to be presumed  innocent until
proven  guilty  beyond  reasonable  doubt  (ICCPR Art.  14.2). Therefore,  the  burden  of  proof
rests with  the  prosecution. Furthermore,  the  right  to  a  fair  trail  also  includes  the  right  of  a
convict  to  judicial  review  by  a  higher  court,  the  right  to  compensation  in  certain  cases  of
wrongful conviction, and  the right not  to be re-tried for an offence for which  the person has
already been convicted or acquitted (ICCPR Arts. 14.5, 14.6, and 14.7). 

Although  a  corrupt  judicial  proceeding  already  constitutes  a  violation  of  the  right  of  the
accused  to  a  fair  hearing  by  a  competent,  independent  and  impartial  tribunal,  it  may
concurrently constitute a violation of one of the aforementioned guarantees. For example, in a
criminal proceeding the accused has the right to be tried without undue delay. However, there
are many cases were judges are bribed to delay the proceedings as much as possible. Through
corrupt means one or more of the aforementioned minimum guarantees can be restricted so as
to negatively affect the rights of the accused. 

As described above, corruption can violate  the essential elements of  the  right  to a  fair  trial.
Corrupt practices in the administration of justice affect the equality of parties, the fairness of
the  hearing,  and  the  competence,  independence  and  impartiality  of  the  tribunal. Corruption
can similarly  restrict  the specific guarantees  that protect  the accused  in criminal procedures.
Yet, all the cases of corruption mentioned above in addition to infringing upon the right to a
fair trial, also affect another fundamental right:  the right to an effective remedy (ICCPR Art.
2.3).

Any person whose rights or freedoms as recognised in the ICCPR have been violated has the
right  to  an  effective  remedy. States  are  under  an  obligation  to  provide  accessible,  effective
and enforceable remedies to uphold civil and political rights. Also called the right to access to
justice, the person claiming the remedy is entitled to have his right determined by a competent
domestic authority, and  states  shall ensure  that competent authorities enforce  such  remedies
when  granted. Cessation  of  an  ongoing  violation  is  an  essential  element  of  the  right  to  an
effective  remedy.4 A  failure by  a  state  to  investigate allegations of violations and bring  the
perpetrators of such violations to justice could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of
the ICCPR 
                                                
4 United Nations Human Rights Committee (HRC), General Comment No. 31: The Nature of the General Legal
Obligations Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, 26 May 2004,
para. 15.
  14



Essential to the enjoyment of this right is the effective administration of justice. For a proper
administration of  justice,  states must ensure  that equality before  the courts  is established by
law and guaranteed in practice, including equal access to courts, fair and public hearings, and
competence,  impartiality  and  independence  of  the  judiciary.  Corrupt  practices  ultimately
undermine the effectiveness and quality of the administration of justice. 

Consequently, corruption  in  the administration of  justice has  the double effect of  infringing
upon the right to a fair trial and the right to an effective remedy. For instance, if a worker is
unfairly dismissed from a company and the worker then brings a lawsuit against the company,
such company may bribe the judge to obtain a favourable judgment. In the end, this person’s
right  to  a  fair  trial  is  violated  simultaneously with  the  right  to  an  effective  remedy  for  the
unfair  dismissal. This  is  an  example  of  the ways  in which  corrupt  practices  that  affect  the
equality  of  the  parties,  the  fairness  of  hearings,  the  independence,  impartiality,  and
competence of the tribunal also result in a violation of the right to an effective remedy. States
must  guarantee  that  remedies  are  accessible,  effective  and  enforceable.  When  there  is
corruption  the  state  fails  to uphold  this guarantee and  thus violates  the  right  to an effective
remedy. 


Corruption as a Violation of the Rights of the Child

Children,  as  well  as  adults,  possess  civil,  political,  economic,  social  and  cultural  human
rights. In many ways their rights are similar to the human rights of adults. However, because
of their special status as minors and because of their physical and mental immaturity, children
need special protection. Thus human rights  that are specific  to children have been  identified
mostly in the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and ICCPR
Art. 24 and  ICESCR Art. 10.3. The rights of  the child are numerous, such as  the right  to be
registered, named and given a nationality upon birth, the right to not be separated from their
parents, the right to engage in play and recreational activities, or the right to be protected from
child labour.

Many of the rights of the child that are shared with adults, such as the right to life or the right
to health, can be violated by corruption in the same way as they are violated with regards to
adults,  as  analysed  in  this  work.  Yet,  the  right  to  education  is  particularly  important  to
children, as they are the principal holders of that right. Thus, as explained in more detail in the
section  on  the  right  to  education,  corruption  in  the  education  sector  very  often  violates  the
right to education of children. 

In  addition,  corruption  can  affect  certain  other  rights which  are  specific  to  children. Three
rights can be identified as particularly affected by corrupt practices: the right of the child to be
protected  in adoption procedures,  the  right of  the child  to be protected  from  trafficking and
sexual exploitation, and the right to be protected from child labour.

Children possess  the  right  to  special protection  in  case of  adoption, particularly  in  cases of
intercountry  adoptions.  To  this  end,  states  must  ensure  that  the  adoption  of  a  child  is
authorised only by a competent authority following legal procedures and taking into account
the best interest of the child. Moreover, it is specifically required of states to take measures to
ensure  that  the  adoption  does  not  result  in  improper  financial  gain  for  those  involved  in  it
(CRC  Art.  21.d).  Yet,  in  many  cases  of  intercountry  adoption  corruption  is  part  of  the
  15


procedure.  Sometimes,  huge  bribes  are  given  to  judges  and  orphanages  to  speed  up  the
adoption process, or corrupt  judges may,  for example, accept  false documents purporting  to
contain  the  consent  of  the  birthparents.  Such  corrupt  practices  reflect  that,  the  right  of  the
child  to  be  protected  in  the  adoption  process  is  violated  because  the  adoption  results  in  a
financial gain for  the parties  involved  in  the procedure, and because  it does not follow  legal
procedures, and it does not take into account the best interest of the child. All this is in direct
violation  of  Article  21  of  the  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  the  Child.  Corruption  in
intercountry adoption can also violate other  rights of  the child,  such as  the  right  to  identity.
Every  child  has  the  right  to  preserve  his  identity,  including  nationality,  name  and  family
relations (CRC Art. 8). The child’s right to an identity implicitly includes the right to the truth
about his own history. In cases of corrupt intercountry adoptions, in order to cover the tracks
of the illegal procedure, evidence of the children’s family lineage, their ethnic roots, and their
medical  histories  are  forever  lost,  thus  violating  the  right  of  the  child  to  an  identity.
Corruption in intercountry adoptions facilitates the commercialisation of children with all the
risks and abuses that this implies, likewise violating several basic human rights to which the
child is entitled.

Corruption impairing the rights of the child is also present in cases of trafficking of children,
particularly  for  sexual  exploitation. Children  have  to  be  protected  from  all  forms  of  sexual
exploitation and sexual abuse (CRC Art. 34), and from abduction, sale, and trafficking (CRC
Art. 35  and Optional Protocol  to  the Convention on  the Rights of  the Child on  the Sale of
Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography). Nonetheless, children are often victim
of  these  crimes.  In  order  to  carry  out  the  trafficking  or  sexual  exploitation  of  children,
criminals commonly partake in corruption, usually bribery. For instance, government officials
need  to  be  bribed  so  that  the  criminals  are  supplied with  the  necessary  documents  to  cross
borders,  and  law  enforcement  officials  must  be  bribed  so  they  turn  a  blind  eye  to  these
activities. When  children  are  not  protected  by  the  state  against  such  criminal  practices,  the
rights of the child to be protected from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, and
from  abduction,  sale,  and  trafficking  are  violated.  Corruption  is  essential  to  carry  out  the
violation.

A  similar  situation  takes  place  concerning  child  labour.  Children  possess  the  right  to  be
protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is harmful to their
health and development (CRC Art. 32). Children under an age determined by law should not
be allowed to work. In many countries, the enforcement of laws against child labour remains
minimal because labour  inspectors are bought through bribes by employers. When a child is
working in a factory and the labour inspector that is supposed to enforce the law and protect
children chooses not to do so in exchange for a bribe from the employer, the state is failing to
meet  its obligation  to protect  the child. Consequently,  the  right of  the child  to be  free  from
economic exploitation and labour are violated. 

Bribery and corruption constitute an essential element in the chain of events that lead to and
sustains  these  violations  of  the  rights  of  the  child.  Without  corruption  all  these  illegal
activities, like fraudulent intercountry adoptions, trafficking of children, and child labor could
not take place. 





  16


Corruption as a Violation of the Right to Work 

Every person has the right to earn his living by a freely chosen and accepted work (ICESCR
Art. 6(1)). This right should not be understood as a right to obtain employment, but as a right
of access to employment opportunities. An essential element of the right to work is that work
must be freely chosen and accepted. In this sense, the right to work is complemented by the
prohibition of slavery, servitude and forced and compulsory labour (ICCPR Art. 8). 

There are however, many  cases of  forced  labour and  in  several of  those cases corruption  is
somehow involved. Corruption can be linked to the restriction of the right to work if a labour
inspector  is  bribed  by  an  employer  so  laws  prohibiting  forced  labour  are  not  enforced. As
stated above,  freely chosen work  is an essential element of  the  right  to work. Hence,  in  this
example,  corruption  as  a  necessary  tool  to  sustain  forced  labour  also  violates  the  right  to
work. 

Furthermore,  the  right  to work  also  entails  access  to  decent work  and  the  right  not  to  be
unfairly  deprived  of  employment.5  Experience  shows  that  this  last  element  of  the  right  to
work, the right not to be arbitrarily dismissed, can be infringed upon as a result of corruption.
This  has  happened  particularly  concerning  corruption within  the  private  sector. Cases  have
been  reported  where  managers  of  a  private  company  embezzle  assets  up  to  the  point  of
bankruptcy,  ultimately  leading  to  the  dismissal  of  employees.6  Violations  can  exist  even
before  bankruptcy  is  reached,  because  if workers  denounce  the  embezzlement  of  company
assets  they  will  often  be  dismissed.7  In  these  two  cases,  corruption  contributes  to  the
restriction of  the  right  to work by  leading  to an unfair deprivation of employment. Whether
corruption can be considered a violation of the right to work has to be determined on a case
by case basis. However,  it may be argued  that  if  the embezzlement of assets  is an essential
element that leads to the arbitrary dismissal of workers, then corruption can be considered as
indirectly violating the right to work. 

A further element of the right to work is that work must attain a certain standard of quality of
just and favourable conditions, such as a fair wage sufficient for a decent living, healthy and
safe conditions of work, and equal pay for equal work (ICESCR Art. 7). It is at this level that
corruption  is most prevalent  in  restricting  the  right  to work.  It has been  reported  that  labour
inspectors  sometimes  respond  to bribery by  employers,  consequently  turning  a blind  eye  to
restrictions to minimum wage, equal pay for equal work, and all other laws protecting just and
favourable conditions of work. 

                                                
5 United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), General Comment No. 18: The
Right to Work, Article 6, U.N. Doc. E/C.12/GC/18, 6 February 2006, para. 6 and 7.
6 For example, a notorious case in China of embezzlement and bribery in a state-owned enterprise led to a
fraudulent bankruptcy. Subsequent protests by workers resulted in some workers’ imprisonment as subversives.
This case led to a complaint before the Freedom of Association Committee of the Governing Body of the ILO,
Case(s) No(s). 2189, Report No. 333 (China): Complaint against the Government of China presented by the
International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the International Metalworkers' Federation
(IMF). See, also, Human Rights Watch, Paying the Price: Work Unrest in Northeast China, Vol. 14, No. 6, C,
August 2002, p. 16 and 17.
7 For example, it has been reported that in Serbia and Montenegro workers reporting corruption and
mismanagement were suspended from their job and received menaces. U.N. Econ. & Soc. Council, Report
submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and
Expression, Ambeyi Ligabo,  Addendum: Mission to the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, U.N. Doc.
E/CN.4/2005/64/Add.4, 8 February 2005, para. 62.
  17


The states’ human rights obligation to respect the right to work requires states to refrain from
interfering with  the  enjoyment  of  the  right. To  this  end,  states must  prohibit  in  law  and  in
practice state  interference with  the  right. As previously mentioned,  it  is common practice  in
many countries for  labour  inspectors responsible for uncovering, reporting on, and  imposing
sanctions  for  breaches  of  labour  law  to  extort  bribes  from  employers.8  When  labour
inspectors, acting as public officials, accept bribes  to overlook violations of workers  rights,
the state itself is not respecting the rights of those workers. 

States  also  have  to  protect  the  rights  of  workers  from  interference  from  third  parties.  If
workers are arbitrarily dismissed as a result of corrupt management, or are subjected to forced
labour or unjust and unsafe conditions by employers, which  in  turn are protected by corrupt
labour inspectors, the state is failing to protect the rights of those workers. 

Finally,  the states’ human right obligation  to fulfil  the right  to work  implies  that states must
adopt  measures  to  ensure  the  full  realisation  of  the  right.  Insufficient  expenditure  or
misallocation of public  funds,  resulting  in  the non-enjoyment of  the  right  to work, has been
identified as a violation of the obligation to fulfil.9 


Corruption as a Violation of the Rights of Political Participation

The  rights  of  political  participation  refer  to  the  right  of  every  citizen  to  be  involved  in  the
conduct of public  affairs,  in  a direct manner or  through  chosen  representation  (ICCPR Art.
25). People directly participate in the conduct of public affairs by exercising their right to vote
or their right to be a candidate, at free and fair elections carried out on the basis of a universal
and equal suffrage by secret ballot. A further component of the rights of political participation
is  the  right  to equal access  to public service, which means  that access  to positions  in public
service should be based on an objective and reasonable process.10 

With  regards  to  the  right  to vote,  the state has  the duty  to ensure  that  individuals eligible  to
vote  can  exercise  this  right  freely.  Persons  entitled  to  vote  must  be  free  to  vote  for  any
candidate without undue  influence or coercion of any kind which may distort or  inhibit  the
free expression of  the elector’s will. Voters  should be able  to  form opinions  independently,
free of violence or threat of violence, compulsion, inducement or manipulative interference of
any kind. States must protect voters from any form of coercion or compulsion and from any
unlawful or arbitrary interference with the voting process. 
                                                
8 See for example the following cases: ILO, Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations, Individual Observation concerning Convention No. 81, Labour Inspection, 1947 Brazil
(ratification: 1989) Published: 1999, para. 3 ; ILO, Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations, Individual Direct Request concerning Convention No. 81, Labour Inspection, 1947 Brazil
(ratification: 1989) Submitted: 2000, para. 2; ILO, Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and
Recommendations, Individual Observation concerning Convention No. 81, Labour Inspection, 1947 Costa Rica
(ratification: 1960) Published: 2004, para. 3; ILO, International Labour Conference Committee: Examination of
individual case concerning Convention No. 81, Labour Inspection Convention, 1947 Uganda (ratification: 1963)
Published: 2001, para. 4. See also, Report produced by Samuel Grumiau for the ICFTU (International
Confederation of Free Trade Unions) with the assistance of the ITGLWF (International Textile, Garment and
Leather Workers' Federation) and the support of the national trade union centres LO (Norway) and FNV
(Netherlands), Garments ‘Made in Bangladesh’ The Social Reality Behind the Label.
9 CESCR, General Comment No. 18, supra note 5, para. 36.
10 HRC, General Comment No. 25, The Right to Participate in Public Affairs, Voting Rights and the Right of
Equal Access to Public Service, Article 25, (Fifty-seventh session, 1996), U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7
(1996), para.23.
  18



It is fairly straightforward to determine that the bribing of voters in order to persuade them to
vote  or  refrain  from  voting  constitutes  an  interference with  the  integrity  of  an  election  and
therefore,  a direct violation of  the  right  to vote. The  same  can be  said  about  the bribing of
election officials  to encourage  them  to  interfere with  the electoral process by  stuffing ballot
boxes  in  favour of a particular candidate or party and  falsifying  the count. States must  take
effective measures  to ensure  that all persons entitled  to vote are able  to exercise  their  right.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee has  stated  that  any  abusive  interference with
registration or voting,  including  intimidation or coercion of voters,  should be prohibited by
penal laws that must be strictly enforced.11 

In  addition,  it  is  important  to  take  into  account  that  such  corrupt  acts  as  vote  buying  and
bribery of election officials  to encourage  them  to  interfere with  the electoral process do not
only  violate  the  right  of  voters,  but  also  the  right  of  candidates  to  stand  for  election.
Restrictions  on  such  a  right  must  be  justified  by  objective  and  reasonable  criteria  and
candidates should not be excluded by unreasonable or discriminatory requirements. If citizens
are bribed  to vote  for one particular candidate,  the  right of  the other candidates  to stand  for
election in a fair and free process is clearly being impaired.

Moreover,  a  potential  candidate  can  see  his  right  to  stand  for  election  restricted  by  other
corrupt  means,  for  example  if  the  pertinent  Electoral  Commission  incurs  in  trading  in
influence or is bribed by an opponent and the candidate is therefore not permitted to register.
There is trading in influence when electoral commissioners abuse their influence with a view
to  obtaining  an  undue  advantage, which  can  be monetary  or  not,  from  a  person who will
benefit from such influence. Such corrupt practice will violate the right to stand for election. 

Corrupt  practices  can  also  negatively  affect  another  component  of  the  rights  of  political
participation: the right to equal access to public service. Access to positions in public service
should  be  based  on  an  objective  and  reasonable  process. However,  often  the way  to  have
access  to work  in  the  public  or  civil  service  is  through  corrupt  avenues.  It  is  important  to
distinguish between the different means used to obtain a job in public administration. Certain
practices,  such  as  nepotism  or  political  favouritism,  although  ethically  questionable,  do  not
constitute an illegal act in many countries. Hence, even though it may be argued that nepotism
goes  against  the  right  to  equal  access  to  public  service,  in  general  it  does  not  constitute  a
corrupt practice in legal terms. Consequently, those acts are not analysed in this work. 

Nonetheless,  there  are  cases  where  people  have  resorted  to  traditional  corrupt  acts,
specifically  bribery,  to  obtain  employment  in  the  public  service. When  a  person  obtains
employment  in  public  administration  because  he  bribed  the  person  in  charge  of  hiring
personnel, such an act violates all the elements of the right to equal access to public service.
No distinctions are permitted between citizens  in  the enjoyment of  this right on any ground.
Any distinction should be on  the basis of objective and  reasonable criteria, which bribery  is
not. Additionally, this right, as is the case with any other right, must be exercised on a basis of
equality and non-discrimination. When a person is refused employment in the public service
because he is not willing to partake in bribery, this person sees their right to equal access to
public service and their right to equality and non-discrimination violated by corruption.

All  the  examples  presented  in  this  section  violate  the  right  of  citizens  to  take  part  in  the
                                                
11 Ibid., para. 11.
  19


conduct of public affairs, directly or through chosen representation. By definition, corruption
goes against a free and fair electoral process and a merit based appointment to public service.
Most  importantly, bribery, abuse of  functions, or  trading  in  influence  in an election process
infringe upon the free expression of the will of the electorate, and as such, directly violate the
rights of all citizens, be they voters or candidates.


Corruption as a Violation of the Right to Food 

The  right  to  food,  also  referred  to  as  the  right  of  everyone  to  be  free  from  hunger  is  a
component of  the more general  right  to an adequate standard of  living  (ICESCR Art. 11.2).
The right to adequate food guarantees all people the ability to feed themselves. It is defined as
physical and economic access, at all  times,  to adequate food and means for  its procurement.
The  core  of  the  right  to  food  implies  the  availability  of  food  in  a  quantity  and  quality
sufficient  to  satisfy  the  dietary  needs  of  individuals,  free  from  adverse  substances,  and
acceptable within a given culture.12 

However,  the  right  to  food does not  imply  that  states must provide  free  food  for  everyone.
States  have  to  take  steps  to  progressively  achieve  the  full  realisation  of  the  right,  and  to
provide  access  to  food  in  an  equal  and  non-discriminatory  way.  The  right  to  food  also
imposes  on  states  three  specific  obligations:  the  obligation  to  respect  existing  access  to
adequate  food,  the  obligation  to  protect  the  right  by  preventing  third  parties,  such  as
corporations, from interfering in any way with the enjoyment of the right, and the obligation
to fulfil the right by adopting the necessary measures to achieve its full realisation.13 

Corruption  can  seriously  undermine  the  realisation  of  the  right  to  food.  The U.N.  Special
Rapporteur on  the Right  to Food  identified  corruption as one of  the  seven major  economic
obstacles that hinder or prevent the realisation of the right.14
  In 1996, the Declaration of the
World Food Summit expressly mentioned corruption as one of the causes of food insecurity.
As it is commonly held with regards to other economic, social and cultural rights, corruption
diverts  essential  resources  away  from  social  spending  and  thus  affects,  in  either  a direct or
indirect way,  the  realisation of  the  right  to  food. Certain  specific corrupt practices common
around the world are known to negatively affect particular elements of the right to food.

An  essential  element  of  the  right  to  adequate  food  is  availability.  This  refers  to  the
possibilities either to feed oneself directly from productive land or other natural resources, or
for well functioning distribution, processing and market systems that can move food from the
site of production to where it is needed in accordance with demand.15 Hence, corrupt practices
generally  related  to  the  possession  and  use  of  land  and  natural  resources  can  restrict  the
availability of food and violate  the  right. For example, when  in order  to obtain a  license  for
possession and use of land a person needs to bribe the public authority in charge of allocating
land licenses, the availability of food is seriously impaired to that person. Similarly, the right
is violated  if,  through  corruption, a person  is allocated  agricultural  land of better quality or
                                                
12 CESCR, General Comment No. 12: The Right to Adequate Food, Article 11, U.N. Doc.  E/C.12/1999/5, 12
May 1999, para.8.
13 Ibid., para. 15.
14 U.N. Econ. & Soc. Council, Report by the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, Submitted
in Accordance with Commission on Human Rights Resolution 2000/10, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2001/53, 7 February
2001, para. 69.
15 CESCR, General Comment No. 12, supra note 12, para. 12.
  20


larger area.  In addition,  the granting of  licenses  for  land use dependent on bribery provides
availability of food in an unequal and discriminative way. 

Corruption may  also  affect  other  elements  of  the  right  to  food. Through  corrupt  practices,
dietary  needs  and  food  safety,  two  essential  elements  of  the  right  to  food,  can  be
compromised  to  a  level  that  the  right  is  violated.  Food  must  satisfy  dietary  needs  which
consist  of  an  adequate  mix  of  nutrients,  calories  and  proteins  necessary  for  physical  and
mental  health  and  growth.16  In  addition,  food must  be  free  from  adverse  substances.  This
means  that  the  government  must  set  and  enforce  health  and  safety  standards  for  food
quality.17 Particular acts of corruption are known to have taken place where a food producer
obtains a food production license by bribing the relevant food safety agency. This can result
in unsafe food supply for a considerable amount of people. Hence, when bribery at the level
of  food  regulation  opens  the  door  for  tainted  food  to  be  placed  in  the market  for  general
consumption,  the  food  safety  and  dietary  needs  recognised  in  the  right  to  food  are  not
respected. In this case, corruption may not only be blamed for indirectly violating the right to
food, but also possibly violating the right to health and right to life. 

Another  important element of  the  right  to adequate  food  is accessibility, which may also be
restricted  by  corruption.  Food  must  be  both  economically  affordable  and  physically
accessible. A specific aspect of the element of accessibility is that socially vulnerable groups
such as landless persons and other particularly impoverished segments of the population may
need attention through special programmes.18 Corruption restricts accessibility to food mainly
by undermining such programmes. In practice, corruption has been present in many such food
programmes and schemes designed to alleviate food necessities of socially vulnerable people.
When a person in the programme embezzles funds which were destined to buy and distribute
food,  or when  he  embezzles  the  food  itself,  and  diverts  the  food  into  the  black market  for
personal profit, this practice will result in socially vulnerable people without direct access to
their food ration.  The right to adequate food of these people is clearly violated by corruption. 

In all the examples given in this section, states fail to meet their obligations arising from the
right  to  adequate  food.  The U.N.  Special Rapporteur  on  the Right  to Food  has  stated  that
combating corruption forms part of a state’s obligation to respect, protect, and fulfil the right
to adequate food.19


Corruption as a Violation of the Right to Water

The human right to water is based on the understanding that safe water is needed to prevent
death from dehydration, to reduce risk of water-related diseases and for use by consumption,
cooking, and personal and domestic hygiene. Hence, water facilities and services have  to be
physically  and  economically  accessible  to  everyone  without  discrimination.20  It  has  been
argued that much of the lack of access to clean water and the increasing water pollution, are
not  caused  by  the  lack  of  natural  supply  of  water  or  by  an  engineering  problem  but  by
                                                
16 Ibid., para. 9.
17 Ibid., para. 10.
18 Ibid., para. 13.
19 U.N. Econ. & Soc. Council, Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, supra note 203, para. 28.
20 CESCR, General Comment No. 15: The Right to Water (arts. 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2002/11, 20 January 2003, para. 12.
  21


corruption.21  Indeed,  if  a  person’s  access  to water  is  restricted  through  corrupt means,  then
corruption has to be blamed for violating that person’s right to water. For example, bribes are
paid by companies to state water regulators to allow for excessive abstraction from rivers and
groundwater  reservoirs,  which  can  ultimately  result  in  the  denial  of  water  access  to
neighbouring communities.

Moreover,  an  additional  element  of  the  right  to  water  is  that  water must  be  adequate  for
human  dignity,  life  and  health.  Although  the  adequacy  of  water  may  vary  according  to
different conditions, in all circumstances the water supply must be continuous and sufficient
for  personal  and  domestic  uses,  and  must  be  of  a  good  quality  for  a  person’s  health.
Corruption can have a detrimental effect on the quality of water. For example, if a company
bribes a public inspector to cover up the discharge of waste into water resources, the quality
of  the water will  suffer. Consequently, people utilising  that water  for personal consumption
will see their right to water of a good quality infringed upon.

The  right  to  water  imposes  on  states  several  obligations.  States  have  to  take  deliberate,
concrete,  targeted steps  towards  the  full  realisation of  the  right  to water  (ICESCR Art. 2.1),
and  must  guarantee  that  the  right  is  enjoyed  without  discrimination  (ICESCR  Art.  2.2).
Moreover,  as  with  regards  to  other  human  rights,  states  also  have  specific  obligations  to
respect,  protect  and  fulfil  the  right  to water.  The  obligation  to  respect  requires  that  states
refrain  from  interfering directly or  indirectly with  the enjoyment of  the  right,  like  refraining
from engaging in practices or activities that deny or limit equal access to water.22 

However,  corruption  in  the water  sector  should  be  linked more  to  the  state  obligations  to
protect  and  fulfil  the  right. The  obligation  to  protect  requires  states  to  prevent  third  parties
from  interfering  in  any way with  the  enjoyment  of  the  right  to water. The United Nations
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has identified the failure of the
state  to  effectively  regulate  and  control  water  services  providers  as  violations  of  this
obligation.23  When  companies  get  away  with  excessive  abstraction  from  rivers  and
groundwater reservoirs through corrupt means such as bribery, thus resulting in the denial of
water access  to neighbouring communities,  the  state  is not complying with  its obligation  to
protect  the  right  to  water.  The  same  is  true  when  companies  discharge  waste  in  water
resources, adversely affecting the quality of the water.  In such cases, corruption is clearly in
connection to a violation of the right to water.

Furthermore, states possess  the obligation  to  fulfil  the  right  to water,  requiring  them  to  take
positive measures  to assist  individuals and communities  in enjoying  the  right,  to ensure  that
there is appropriate education concerning the use of water, and to provide access to the right
when people are unable to realise the right themselves.24 As violations of this obligation, the
CESCR  has  identified  failure  of  the  state  to  take  measures  to  reduce  the  inequitable
distribution  of  water  facilities  and  services,  as  well  as  the  insufficient  expenditure  or
misallocation of public resources which results in the non-enjoyment of the right to water by
individuals  or  groups,  particularly  the  vulnerable  or marginalised.25  The  embezzlement  of
                                                
21 P. St􀀀lgren, Corruption in the Water Sector: Causes, Consequences and Potential Reform, Swedish Water
House Policy Brief No. 4, SIWI, 2006, p. 3. See also, World Water Assessment Programme, Water, a Shared
Responsibility: The United Nations World Water Development Report 2 (WWDR 2), pag. 9.
22 CESCR, General Comment No. 15, supra note 20, para. 21.
23 Ibid., para. 44.
24 Ibid., para. 25.
25 Ibid., para. 44.
  22


funds from the water sector takes away monetary resources which could be used to improve
the water system. Another corrupt practice that siphons off scarce resources is the commonly
occurring falsified meter reading. In many countries, people bribe inspectors to falsify meter
readings in order to reduce the payment of the water service.26 This corrupt act multiplied by
thousands,  can  result  in  less  income  for  the  water  sector  and  less  investment  aimed  at
providing more access  to water. This example shows how  the state  fails  to  fulfil but also  to
protect the right to water. 


Corruption as a Violation of the Right to Adequate Housing

The right to adequate housing, a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, is
concerned with  the measures  required  to  ensure  that  everyone  has  housing which  is  safe,
healthy  and  adequate  (ICESCR  Art.  11.1).  In  addition,  the  right  aims  at  eliminating
discrimination in the field of housing, and at prohibiting forced or arbitrary evictions or acts
of unjust dispossession. The right to adequate housing does not entail that the government has
to build housing for the entire population or that housing must be provided free of charge to
whomever requests it. It is a right of access. What constitutes adequate is dependent on social,
economic,  climatic,  ecological,  and  other  factors,  however,  there  are  certain  minimum
elements which form part of the right and should always be taken into account.27 Corruption
may violate this right by restricting one or more of its elements. 

All persons  should possess a degree of  legal  security of  tenure which guarantees protection
against forced eviction, harassment and threats. This can be seriously undermined by corrupt
means,  when  corruption  is  at  the  origin  of  the  evictions.  This  happens  if  a  company  is
interested in a piece of land to build a new commercial enterprise but the land is occupied by
an urban poor area.  In such a case the company may resort to bribing a key official in order to
be  awarded  a  lease  over  the  land.  This,  in  turn,  may  result  in  the  forced  eviction  of  the
inhabitants of  the area. The bribes can also be given directly  to relevant people  in  the urban
area instead than bribing a public official. There are other cases in which village leaders were
bribed into signing blank contracts with the local land administration, who then sold the land
to developers, eventually leading to the eviction of the entire village.28 In this and other ways,
corruption can impair the security of tenure of the right to adequate housing. 

Adequate housing also entails that houses must contain facilities essential for health, security,
comfort, and nutrition, such as heating, safe drinking water, lighting, sanitation and washing
facilities. Moreover, housing must be habitable  in  terms of  space and protection  from  cold,
rain,  threats  to health and  structural hazards. Corruption  in procurement can also affect  this
aspect  of  the  right  to  housing.  Embezzlement  of  funds  in  a  programme  destined  to  build
housing  units,  or  bribery  in  the  selection  of  contractors,  may  result  in  construction  of
substandard quality. 

In addition, adequate housing requires that the location of the housing units allows access to
employment, health-care services, schools, and other social facilities. Housing policies should
                                                
26 P. St􀀀lgren, supra note 21, p. 8.
27 CESCR, General Comment No. 4: The Right to Adequate Housing, Article 11(1) of the Covenant, U.N. Doc.
E/1992/23, 13 December 1991, para. 8. 
28 In 2005, 7000 farmers were evicted from 670 hectares of land by way of bribing village leaders in the
Guangdond province in China. Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE), Forced Evictions: Violations
of Human Rights, 2006, p. 69.
  23


also enable  the expression of cultural  identity, and  the cost of housing  should be affordable
and commensurate with income levels. 

Accessibility,  a  further  element  of  the  right  to  housing,  can  also  be  clearly  affected  by
corruption. Housing should be accessible to all, and disadvantaged groups in particular should
be accorded  some degree of priority consideration  in  the housing  sphere.  In many countries
when housing programmes are  implemented,  the easiest way  to obtain a house  is by bribing
the  relevant person.  In other occasions, people are promised  alternative housing after being
evicted. But access to such alternative housing is often dependent upon bribing the person in
charge of housing distribution. Sometimes, well-intentioned housing subsidised programmes
designed  for  disadvantaged  groups  are  hijacked  by  administrators  of  the  programme  who
require bribes in order to allocate low-cost housing units. 

Another corrupt act  that affects accessibility  to  the right  to adequate housing  is  the abuse of
functions.  In  many  countries,  it  is  the  provincial  or  regional  government  who  owns  the
majority  of  land. Many  times  informal  settlements  are  built  on  those  lands. This  gives  the
power of eviction to provincial or regional administration officials who might abuse it. Cases
have  been  known  to  exist  where  the  public  official  requires  a  bribe  in  order  to  grant
permission  to  build  on  that  land.29  In  this way,  corruption  can  clearly  restrict  the  access  to
housing. 

As  it  is  the  case with  all other human  rights,  states have  certain obligations  concerning  the
right  to  housing.  States  are  obligated  to  respect,  protect  and  fulfil  the  right  to  adequate
housing.  The  obligation  to  respect  requires  states  to  refrain  from  interfering  with  the
enjoyment  of  the  right. However,  in  cases were  people  are  evicted  as  a  consequence  of  a
corrupt  practice,  or when  people must  endure  substandard  and  dangerous  housing  because
corruption  lead  to  selecting  the  less  qualified  contractor  during  the  procurement  process,
states are clearly interfering in the enjoyment of the right to housing of those people, and thus
not complying with their obligation to respect the right. 

States need  also  to  fulfil  the  right  to  adequate housing,  thus  they  should  adopt measures  to
achieve the full realisation of the right. When funds that could be used for fulfilling the right
to  adequate  housing,  for  example  by  building  more  subsidised  housing  units,  are  instead
embezzled by corrupt officials, there is a clear non-compliance with the obligation to fulfil the
right. The same should be said when access  to housing  is dependent on bribing  the  relevant
official. Moreover, even when the bribe is requested by a non-governmental official, such as
by an intermediate agent in the allocation of housing units, the state is also failing to comply
with its obligation to protect the right. 

All  the  corruption  cases  presented  above,  evidence  the  ways  in  which  a  corrupt  act  may
constitute the essential reason for the state not to comply with its obligations. And this results
in corruption violating the right to housing.  


Corruption as a Violation of the Right to Health 

The right to health (ICESCR Art. 12), also known by its more technical name, the right to the
highest  attainable  standard  of  physical  and  mental  health,  is  defined  as  the  “right  to  the
                                                
29 See, COHRE, Listening to the Poor?: Housing Rights in Nairobi, COHRE Fact Finding Mission to Nairobi,
Kenya, Final Report, June 2006, p. 85-86. 
  24


enjoyment  of  a  variety  of  facilities,  goods,  services  and  conditions  necessary  for  the
realisation of  the highest attainable standard of health.”30 While  this right does have a broad
scope,  it does not entail  the  right  to be healthy. The  right  to health  includes health care, but
also  the underlying determinants of health, such as safe drinking water, adequate sanitation,
adequate  supply of  safe  food, nutrition, housing, occupational health,  environmental health,
and  access  to  health-related  information.31  Another  core  component  of  the  right  has  been
identified, which  the state must guarantee under all circumstances regardless of  its available
resources: access to maternal and child health care, including family planning, immunisation
against the major infectious diseases, appropriate treatment of common diseases and injuries,
essential drugs, adequate supply of safe water and basic sanitation, and freedom from serious
environmental health threats.

Corruption  in  the  health  sector  can  take  many  forms,  such  as  bribery  of  regulators  and
medical professionals, manipulation of information on drug trials, the diversion of medicines
and supplies, and corruption in procurement. Of the many ways that corruption can take place
in  the health  sector, probably  the most noticeable  is corruption  in hospitals. Money escapes
from  hospitals  through  opaque  procurement  of  equipment  and  supplies,  ghost  employees,
absenteeism,  exaggerated  construction  costs,  inflated  hospital  price  tags,  and  requiring
patients to pay bribes for treatment that should be without charge. 

In  general  terms,  corruption  in  the  health  sector  can  be  structured  in  three  levels:  corrupt
practices  taking  place  at  the  level  of  financial  resources  management,  at  the  level  of
management of medical supplies, or at the level of the health worker and patient relationship. 

The  rationale  behind  claiming  that  corruption  is  a  violation  of  the  human  right  to  health
usually  stems  from  the  general  notion  that money  lost  to  corruption  could  be  used  to  buy
medicines, equip hospitals or hire medical  staff. However,  such claims do not clearly  show
the direct link between corruption and human rights. There are numerous corruption cases in
the health sector that, depending on the specificities of each case, may or may not constitute a
violation of the right to health.  In order to determine when corrupt practices may constitute a
violation of the right to health it is useful to follow the guidelines identified by the Committee
on  Economic,  Social  and  Cultural  Rights  that  constitute  the  framework  of  the  right: 
availability, accessibility, and quality of health.

Functioning public health and health-care facilities, goods, services, and programmes have to
be  available  in  sufficient  quantity  within  the  state.  Although  the  precise  nature  of  these
facilities will vary, they must include the underlying determinants of health, such as safe and
potable drinking water, adequate sanitation facilities, hospitals, clinics, professional personnel
receiving domestically competitive  salaries, and essential drugs.32 Many  corruption cases  in
the  health  sector  restrict  this  aspect  of  the  right  to  health.  For  example,  corruption  in  the
procurement of medicines affects the availability of drugs. It has been estimated that as much
as 25 percent of procured medicines can be lost to fraud, bribery, and other corrupt practices.
This represents approximately US$ 12.5 billion. 33 
                                                
30 CESCR, General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health (Article 12 of the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), U.N. Doc. E/C.12/2000/4, 11 August 2000,
para. 9.
31 Ibid., para. 11.
32 Ibid., para. 12.
33 United Nations News Service, UN health agency launches initiative to fight corruption in medicines
procurement, 30 October 2006.
  25



Health  facilities,  as  well  as  goods  and  services  must  be  accessible  to  everyone  without
discrimination. Accessibility not only entails physical accessibility but also economic.34 The
CESCR  has  emphasised  that  equality  of  access  to  health  care  and  health  services  is  of  the
utmost importance.35 This is key to the issue of corruption. Corruption in the health sector, as
is the case with many other human rights, also usually violates the right to equality and nondiscrimination.
 A common corrupt practice in hospitals is the payment of bribes or so-called
“informal  payments,” where  patients  are  forced  to  offer  bribes  at  hospitals  in  order  to  be
treated, x-rayed, allocated a bed in the ward or operated upon. The U.N. Special Rapporteur
on the Right to Health has stated that the accessibility to health care is hindered by corruption,
particularly  by  the  request  of  informal  payments.36  Research  has  found  evidence  that
corruption in the form of informal payments for care reduces access to services, especially for
the poor, and  causes delays  in  care-seeking behaviour.37 Studies have  shown  that  in certain
regions about 35% of births in rural areas take place at home, in part because of high charges
for care in facilities where care was supposed to be free.38 

The aforementioned examples show that when bribes are requested from patients, their access
to  health  is  severely  restricted.  This  clearly  goes  against  the  requirement  of  accessibility.
When a person  seeking health  service  is asked  for a bribe  in order  to  receive  treatment,  the
right to health of that patient is violated, as the request for a bribe restricts his access to health
and places him in a position of inequality before other patients. 

Health facilities, goods and services must also be scientifically and medically appropriate and
of good quality. This  requires,  inter alia, skilled medical personnel, as well as scientifically
approved and unexpired drugs and hospital equipment.39 Corrupt practices in the health sector
directly go against the requirement of quality. An often-used example is the case of a Minister
of Health who,  contrary  to  his  obligation,  corruptly  purchases  expired  drugs  and when  an
epidemic breaks out, a whole community is affected.40 In this example, not only is the right to
health clearly  infringed upon, but also  the  right  to  life. Even  if  the expired drugs purchased
corruptly by the Minister of Health are never utilised, they constitute a threat to an individual
or  group  of  individuals,  thus  clearly  going  against  the  state’s  obligation  to  ensure  the
realisation of  the  right  to health,  expressly  stipulated under both Articles 2.1  and 12 of  the
ICESCR. Health quality, and particularly drug’s quality, can be seriously affected by corrupt
practices. 

An additional way of analysing  the ways  in which corrupt practices may violate  the right  to
health is by referring to the states’ obligation with regards to this right. These obligations are
varied.  States  have  the  immediate  obligation  to  guarantee  that  the  right  will  be  exercised
                                                
34 CESCR, General Comment No. 14, supra note 30, para. 12.
35 Ibid., para. 19 and para. 43.
36 U.N. Econ. & Soc. Council, The Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of
Physical and Mental Health, Report of the Special Rapporteur, Paul Hunt, Addendum: Mission to Mozambique,
U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2005/51/Add. 2, 4 January 2005, para. 41; U.N. Econ. & Soc. Council, Report Submitted by
the Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of
Physical and Mental Health, Paul Hunt, Addendum: Mission to Romania, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2005/51/Add. 4, 21
February 2005, para. 36.
37 M. Lewis, Who Is Paying for Health Care in Eastern Europe and Central Asia? Human Development Sector
Unit, Europe and Central Asia Region. Washington, DC, World Bank, 2000.
38 World Bank, Azerbaijan Health Sector Note, (Volumes I and II). Washington, DC: World Bank, 2005.
39 CESCR, General Comment No. 14, supra note 30, para. 12.
40 N. Jayawickrama, Corruption—A Violation of Human Rights?, Transparency International Working Paper,
1998, p. 5.
  26


without discrimination (ICESCR Art. 2.2). States also are under the general obligation to take
steps  towards  the  full  realisation  of  the  right  to  health  (ICESCR Art.  2.1). However, when
corruption  in  the  health  sector  is widespread  and  systematic,  the  state  does  not  seem  to  be
taking  steps  in  the  right  direction. The UN  Special Rapporteur  on  the Right  to Health  has
specifically  referred  to  this  and  held  that when  a  state  does  not  reach  its  goals  in  order  to
progressively  achieve  the  realisation  of  the  right  to  health  due  to  corruption  in  the  health
sector, then the state has failed to comply with its obligations concerning the right to health.41
A  specific  example  of  one  aspect  of  the  right  to  health may  help  clarifying  this  point. As
stated  above,  states  have  to  guarantee  the  accessibility  to  maternal  and  child  health  care.
However, a study carried out by  the  International Monetary Fund  (IMF) using data  from 71
countries shows that countries with high indices of systematic corruption have higher rates of
infant mortality.42 Thus,  corruption  goes  directly  against what  is  provided  under Article  12
.2(a) of  the  ICESCR, whereby  in order  to achieve  the  full  realisation of  the  right  to health,
states must take steps to reduce infant mortality. 

As with  other  rights,  states  also  have  specific  obligations  to  respect,  protect,  and  fulfil  the
right to health. The obligation to respect requires states to refrain from interfering directly or
indirectly with the enjoyment of the right to health. As violations of the obligation to respect
the right to health, the CESCR has identified the denial of access to health facilities, and the
denial of goods and  services  to particular  individuals or groups as a  result of de  jure or de
facto discrimination.43 Thus, when a person  is asked  for a bribe  to access  to health  service,
there  is a clear de  facto discrimination and  the  state  is not complying with  its obligation  to
respect a person’s enjoyment of the right to health. 

The  obligation  to  protect  requires  states  to  take  measures  that  prevent  third  parties  from
interfering with  the  right  to  health.  To  this  end,  states  should  adopt  legislation  or  policies
ensuring  equal  access  to  health  care  and  health-related  services  provided  by  third  parties,
should control the marketing of medical equipment and medicines by third parties, and should
ensure that medical practitioners and other health professionals meet appropriate standards of
education, skill and ethical codes of conduct.44 

As violations of  the obligation  to protect,  the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights has identified the omission or failure to regulate the activities of individuals, groups, or
corporations, and  the failure  to protect consumers and workers from practices detrimental  to
health.45 This is the most important obligation upon states concerning corruption in the health
sector. When the state fails to regulate the activities in the health sector, and doctors ask for
bribes,  funds  are  stolen,  medicine  goes  missing  and  a  person  is  affected  by  such  corrupt
practices, then the state is not complying with its obligation to protect the right to health. 

In  this  context,  corrupt  practices  in  the  pharmaceutical  industry  are  particularly  relevant.
Unethical  drug  promotion  and  physician  conflict  of  interest  can  have  negative  effects  on
health  outcomes,  as  well.  Promotional  activities  and  other  interactions  between
                                                
41 U.N. Econ. & Soc. Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the
Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health, Paul Hunt, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/48, 3 March
2006, para. 40.
42 S. Gupta, H.R. Davoodi, E. Tiongson, Corruption and the Provision of Health Care and Education Services,
Governance, Corruption and Economic Performance, Washington, D.C., International Monetary Fund, 2002.
IMF Working Paper 00/116, Appendix Table 9 p.27
43 CESCR, General Comment No. 14, supra note 30, para. 50.
44 Ibid., para. 35.
45 Ibid., para. 51.
  27


pharmaceutical companies and physicians, if not tightly regulated, can influence physicians to
engage in unethical and corrupt practices. Studies have shown that these interactions can lead
to non-rational prescribing46 and increased costs with little or no additional health benefit. If
states do not protect the right to health in their jurisdictions against these kinds of abuses, they
violate their duty to protect the right. 

The  obligation  to  fulfil  requires  states  to  adopt  appropriate  legislative,  administrative,
budgetary, judicial, promotional and other measures towards the full realisation of the right to
health. As  violations  of  the  obligation  to  fulfil,  the  CESCR  has  identified  the  insufficient
expenditure or misallocation of public resources resulting in the non-enjoyment of the right to
health  by  individuals  or  groups.47  When  funds  destined  to  provide  health  service  are
embezzled and thus resulting in less availability, accessibility, and quality of health services,
the state might be held to be violating its duty to fulfil the right to health. 

There are numerous direct ways by which corruption can violate the right to health. The most
prevalent  acts  of  corruption  violating  the  right  to  health  are  bribery  in  hospitals  and
embezzlement of funds and assets destined  to health services. Most of  those practices affect
the  availability,  accessibility,  and  quality  of  health  services.  As  described  in  this  section,
when the state does not come to prevent and combat such practices, corruption thus leads to a
clear and direct violation of the right to health. 


Corruption as a Violation of the Right to Education 

The  right  to  education  is  guaranteed  in  several  international  instruments,  most  notably
Articles 13 and 14 of  the  ICESCR.  In general  terms,  this  right has  two main dimensions: a
social dimension and a freedom dimension. The social dimension refers to the right to receive
an  education  directed  towards  the  aims  and  objectives  identified  in  Article  13.1  of  the
ICESCR. The right to receive an education requires states to make various forms of education
(primary,  secondary,  higher,  and  fundamental)  available  and  easily  accessible  to  all. While
primary  education must  be  free  and  compulsory,  secondary  and  higher  education  are made
generally available and accessible through the progressive introduction of free education. 

Corruption  is  also  highly  present  in  the  education  sector.  In most  countries,  the  education
sector  is one of  the  largest components of  the public  sector.  It consumes between 20%  and
30% of  the  total budget,  employs  the highest proportion of  educated human  resources,  and
concerns between 20% and 25% of the population.48 This creates opportunities and incentives
for  corruption  which  occur  in  numerous  forms  and  at  all  levels.  Rigged  bids  for  tender,
embezzlement of  funds,  illegal  registration  fees, absenteeism, and  fraud  in examinations are
some of the forms that corruption can take in the education sector. 

Corruption  in  the education  sector has already been  linked  to  the human  right  to education.
For example, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights held that the arbitrary
closure of universities and secondary schools for two years, accompanied by non-payment of
teachers’ salaries because of widespread corruption, which prevented students from attending
                                                
46 A. Wazana, “Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry: Is a Gift Ever Just a Gift?,” in Journal of the
American Medical Association, Vol. 283, 2000, p. 373-380.
47 Ibid., para. 52.
48 J. Hallak and M. Poisson, UNESCO, International Institute for Education, Corrupt Schools, Corrupt
Universities: What Can Be Done? Paris, International Institute for Education Planning, 2007.
  28


school and teachers from providing education to the students, violated the right to education
under the African Charter.49 This shows a rather general and indirect link between corruption
and  the  right  to  education.  In  order  to  determine when  corrupt  practices may  constitute  a
violation  of  the  right  to  education,  it  is  of  use  to  follow  the  right’s  features  of  availability,
accessibility, acceptability, and adaptability. Education in all its forms and at all levels should
contain those features.50 

Education institutions and programmes must be available in sufficient quantity.51 Availability
also means  that  educational  institutions  and  programmes must  be  equipped with what  they
require  to  function,  such  as  buildings,  sanitation  facilities,  safe  drinking  water,  trained
teachers  receiving  competitive  salaries,  and  teaching  materials.  Several  different  corrupt
practices in the education sector have a negative effect on the availability of education. Most
notably,  the  embezzlement  of  funds  originally  allocated  to  provide  education  takes  away
needed resources to equip educational institutions. 

The  second  feature  of  the  right  to  education  is  accessibility,  by which  education  should  be
accessible to everyone without discrimination. Accessibility not only refers to physical access
but  also  to  economic  access.52  In  this  context,  education  must  be  affordable  to  all  and
completely free at the primary level. 

Corrupt practices in the education sector, particularly at the school and classroom levels, can
restrict  or  completely  obstruct  access  to  education.  First,  corruption  entails  discrimination.
Thus, when children are requested to make informal payments, their access to education is not
based on standards of equality but on ability to pay a bribe, which amounts to discrimination
and corruption. Second, many corrupt practices affect the accessibility to education. When the
admission to class is only granted after paying a bribe, or when parents are asked to pay for
private  tuition  in which  the  teacher  teaches  their child  the essentials of  the curriculum after
official school hours, or when parents have to pay if they want their child's exercise books to
be  corrected,  only  people  possessing  sufficient  economic  resources  and willing  to  incur  in
corruption  have  access  to  education. Most  importantly,  all  corrupt  practices  that  entail  the
disbursement  of  money  at  primary  education  contravene  the  fact  that  this  must  be  free.
Evidently, the majority of corrupt practices in the education sector, particularly at the school
and classroom levels, restrict the accessibility to education. 

Further  features  of  the  right  to  education  are  acceptability  and  adaptability.  The  form  and
substance  of  education  should  be  acceptable  to  students  and  parents  with  regards  to  the
relevance,  cultural  appropriateness  and  quality;  and  should  also  be  flexible  to  adapt  to  the
need  of  changing  societies.53  Corruption  in  the  education  sector  has  an  impact  on  the
standards of quality of  education,  thus  affecting  the  element of  acceptability of  the  right  to
education. Corruption  in procurement affects  the acquisition of educational material, meals,
buildings, and equipment, usually resulting in poor quality products. Recruitment of personnel
may also be tainted by corruption. Bribes in recruitment procedures may result in unqualified
                                                
49 K. Singh, “Education: International Obligations and Regional Legal Normative Action in Africa,” African
Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 12, 2004, p. 456.
50 CESCR, General Comment No. 13: The Right to Education (Article 13 of the Covenant), U.N. Doc.
E/C.12/1999/10, 8 December 1999, para 6; U.N. Econ. & Soc. Council, Preliminary Report of the Special
Rapporteur on the Right to Education, Katarina Tomaševski, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1999/49, 13 January 1999, and
subsequent reports. 
51 CESCR, General Comment No. 13, supra note 50, para 6
52 Ibid.
53 Ibid.
  29


teachers being appointed. Hence, corruption in the education sector also produces substandard
education. 

The  right  to  education  also  has  a  freedom  dimension. This  concerns  the  right  to  academic
freedom and institutional autonomy and it implies the personal freedom of individuals or their
parents  or  guardians  to  choose  educational  institutions meeting  their  educational,  religious,
and moral  convictions  (ICESCR Art. 13.3). This also  implies  the  freedom of  individuals  to
establish and direct their own educational institutions (ICESCR Art. 13.4). This dimension of
the right to education can also be hindered by corruption. For example, if parents are required
to pay bribes  in order  to  transfer a child  from one school  to another or simply  to keep  their
child  in  school. When  parents  need  economic  resources  in  order  to  bribe  the  school  they
would  prefer  for  their  children,  or when  parents  simply  do  not want  to  partake  in  corrupt
practices,  they are not free  to choose  the education  institutions for  their children as  required
by the right to education.

As evidenced, corruption in the education sector affects the right to education in many ways.
In  order  to  determine when  such  corrupt  practices  constitute  a  violation  of  the  right,  it  is
useful to briefly refer to the obligations upon states concerning the right to education.

States have several obligations with regards to the right to education. Pursuant to article 2.2 of
the ICESCR, states posses the immediate and general obligation of guaranteeing the right to
education without discrimination of any kind irrespective of constraints upon resources. When
corruption restricts the access to education, discrimination is clearly taking place as it will be
shown later in this work. 

As provided in article 2.1 of the ICESCR, states also have the general obligation to take steps
to progressively achieve the full realisation of the right to education. When corruption in the
education sector  is widespread and systematic,  the state does not seem  to be  taking steps  in
the right direction. But most importantly, the right to education, like all human rights, imposes
on  states  three  specific  obligations:  the  obligations  to  respect,  protect,  and  fulfil.  The
obligation to respect requires states to avoid measures that hinder or prevent the enjoyment of
the  right  to  education.  States must  prevent  denial  of  access  to  education  both  in  law  and
practice. Direct or indirect costs, such as compulsory levies on parents (sometimes portrayed
as voluntary, when in fact they are not) constitute disincentives to the enjoyment of the right
to  education.54 The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has  identified  that
the  failure  to  take measures  that  address  de  facto  educational  discrimination  constitutes  a
violation  of  the  right  to  education.55  Thus, when  a  person  is  asked  for  a  bribe  in  order  to
access their education, there is a clear de facto discrimination and the state is not complying
with its obligation to respect the enjoyment of that person’s right to education. 

The  obligation  to  protect  requires  states  to  take  measures  that  prevent  third  parties  from
interfering  with  the  enjoyment  of  the  right  to  education.  To  this  end,  states must  combat
discrimination in access to education and must maintain an acceptable educational standard of
quality. Most of  the examples under  this section are of cases where  third parties  interfere  in
the  enjoyment  of  the  right  to  education,  particularly with  regards  to  access  and  quality  of
education. When this takes places, states are not complying with their obligation to protect the
enjoyment of this right. 
                                                
54 CESCR, General Comment No. 11: Plans of Action for Primary Education, Article 14, U.N. Doc.
E/C.12/1999/4, 10 May 1999, para. 7.
55 CESCR, General Comment No. 13, supra note 50, para. 59.
  30



The  obligation  to  fulfil  requires  states  to  take  positive  measures  that  enable  and  assist
individuals and communities  to enjoy  the  right  to education. States must work  towards  free
education and must make education facilities and teaching materials available to their citizens.
When embezzlement of funds destined  to education result  in  lack of education facilities and
teaching materials, the state is clearly not complying with its obligation to fulfil. 

As  seen  in  this  section, most  corrupt practices  in  the  education  sector  infringe upon one or
more of  the  elements of  the  right  to  education  (availability,  accessibility,  acceptability,  and
adaptability). Such cases evidence  the ways  in which corruption may violate  in a direct way
the right to education.


  31


Embezzlement of Funds Destined to Social Programmes as a Violation of
Human Rights

The  rationale  behind  claiming  that  corruption  is  a  violation  of  human  rights  usually  stems
from  the general notion  that money  lost  to corruption could be used  to buy medicine, equip
schools, and provide for food. Hence, it is useful to analyse in more detail the corrupt practice
of embezzlement, particularly the embezzlement of funds destined to social programmes. This
recurrent corrupt practice may affect a wide range of human rights. 

As described earlier,  the  right  to health  (ICESCR Art. 12)  is usually understood  in  terms of
the  availability,  accessibility,  acceptability,  and  quality  of  the  public  health  and  health-care
facilities,  goods,  services,  and programmes. Health  facilities,  as well  as  goods  and  services
have  to  be  available  in  sufficient  quantity within  the  state,  accessible  to  everyone without
discrimination,  and  scientifically  and  medically  appropriate  and  of  good  quality.  Most
corruption cases affect several of these elements of the right to health. This is particularly true
in the case of embezzlement of public funds by public officials. Part of the health budget can
“disappear” before  it  is paid out by  the Ministry of Finance  to  the Ministry of Health. More
money  is  then  siphoned  off  as  funds  are  channelled  from  the  national  government  to
provincial governors and eventually to directors or managers of local hospitals. As resources
are drained from health budgets through embezzlement and procurement fraud, less funding is
available  to pay salaries and  fund operations and maintenance,  leading  to demotivated staff,
lower quality of care, and  reduced  service availability and use.  In other words, corrupt acts
and  especially  embezzlement  have  the  potential  of  interfering  simultaneously  with  the
availability, accessibility, and quality of the right to health and thus violate such right.

Embezzlement may  also  affect  the  food  safety  and  dietary  needs  recognised  in  the  right  to
food (ICESCR Art. 11.2). When a public official misappropriates part of a subsidy scheme or
other  funds  allocated  for  a  food  programme  to  instead  purchase  low-cost  and  substandard
quality food, the dietary needs and food safety of that programme or scheme will be affected,
possibly resulting in the violation of the right to food of the beneficiaries of the food scheme.
Food must  also be  accessible  to  everyone,  i.e. both  economically  affordable  and physically
accessible. A specific aspect of the element of accessibility is that socially vulnerable groups
such as landless persons and other particularly impoverished segments of the population may
need attention  through special programmes. Corruption  restricts accessibility  to  food mainly
by undermining such programmes. In practice, corruption has been present in many such food
programmes and schemes designed to alleviate food necessities of socially vulnerable people.
This is because programmes and schemes designed to give everyone access to food often have
large budgets, thus creating opportunities and incentives for corruption. When a person in the
programme  embezzles  funds which were  destined  to  buy  and  distribute  food,  or when  he
embezzles  the food  itself, and diverts  the food  into  the black market for personal profit,  this
practice will  result  in  socially  vulnerable  people without  direct  access  to  their  food  ration. 
The right to adequate food of these people is clearly violated by corruption. 

The  embezzlement  of  funds  originally  allocated  to  provide  education  takes  away  needed
resources to equip educational institutions. The right to education (ICESCR Arts. 13 and 14)
provides that education institutions and programmes must be available in sufficient quantity.
Availability also means that educational institutions and programmes must be equipped with
what  they  require  to  function,  such  as  buildings,  sanitation  facilities,  safe  drinking  water,
trained teachers receiving competitive salaries, and teaching materials. 

  32


Several  different  corrupt  practices  in  the  education  sector  have  a  negative  effect  on  the
availability of education and most notably the embezzlement of funds. When funds are stolen
it  is  the children, who suffer  the  largest consequences, having  to make do with poor quality
educational  equipment. Moreover,  the  lack  of  resources  also  results  in  lower  salaries  for
teachers,  which  is  part  of  the  reason  why  they  incur  into  regular  absenteeism  or  corrupt
practices, such as asking for bribes. Thus,  the embezzlement of funds also  indirectly creates
more opportunities for corruption. When embezzlement of funds destined to education result
in  lack of education facilities and  teaching materials,  the state  is clearly not complying with
its obligation to fulfil the right to education and thus the right to education is violated.

Likewise,  corruption  by way  of  embezzlement  of  funds  that  are  destined  to  finance  prison
services  may  result  in  fewer  resources  and  deteriorating  detention  conditions.  Everyone
deprived  of  their  liberty  in  prisons,  hospitals,  detention  camps,  correctional  institutions,  or
elsewhere  have  the  right  to  be  treated  with  humanity  and  dignity  (ICCPR  Art.  10).  For
example,  in  the  treatment  of  prisoners,  humanity  and  dignity means: minimum  floor  space
and cubic content of air  for each prisoner, adequate  sanitary  facilities, clothing which  in no
manner should be degrading or humiliating, a separated bed, and food of adequate nutritional
value.56  

Embezzlement of prison funds can occur at different levels, from the highest ministerial level
down to the person in charge of the prison or institution where people are held. Corruption of
this  type will  certainly  affect  the  treatment  of  prisoners,  possibly  to  a  degree which would
render  their  treatment  inhuman and undignified. This may happen,  for example,  if a  lack of
resources  results  in a  shortage of  food  for prisoners or  if  there are no  financial  resources  to
provide  them with  necessary  blankets  or  beds.  If  corruption  is  at  the  origin  of  the  lack  of
financial  resources,  it may be  linked with a violation of  the  right of persons denied of  their
liberty to be treated with humanity and dignity. 

The corrupt practice of embezzlement or misappropriation of assets may also affect the right
to a  fair  trial and  to an  effective  remedy  (ICCPR Art. 14  and 2.3). Embezzlement of  funds
allocated to justice takes away resources from the administration of justice and will affect its
quality  and  effectiveness. The  lack  of  resources  for  a  proper  administration  of  justice may
result  in  insufficient  personnel  if  there  are  no  resources  to  afford  the  necessary  amount  of
personnel,  just  to  name  one  example.  This  in  turn  might  create  a  backlog  of  cases  and
excessively delay procedures, thus infringing upon a person’s right to be tried without undue
delay as provided under the ICCPR article 14.3(c) and, consequently, violating their right to a
fair trial and an effective remedy. 

When  money  goes  missing  the  state  is  not  complying  with  a  principal  human  rights
obligation:  to  use  the maximum  of  its  available  resources  to  achieve  the  full  realisation  of
economic,  social  and  cultural  rights  (ICESCR Art. 2.1).  In  addition,  the  corrupt practice of
embezzlement usually  involves assets  that were destined  to provide goods or services  to  the
citizenry. Hence, in most cases the embezzlement of funds prevents the state from delivering
those goods or services and thus fulfilling human rights. In such cases, as seen in this section
through several examples the embezzlement of assets might result in human rights violations. 
                                                
56 United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, Part I: Rules of General Application.
  33


Corruption Results in Discrimination

The  impact  of  corrupt  practices  on  the  rights  to  equality  and  non-discrimination merits  a
separate analysis as corruption by definition constitutes a means of escaping equal treatment
and in most cases results in discrimination. 

All  individuals possess  the  right  to equality and non-discrimination  (ICCPR Arts. 2.1, 3, 26
and ICESCR Arts. 2.2, 3). Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to be protected
by  law on  a basis of  equality. These  rights  guarantee  that  those  in  equal  circumstances  are
dealt with equally  in  law and  in practice. A violation of  the principle of non-discrimination
arises if: a) equal cases are treated in a different manner; b) a difference in treatment does not
have an objective and reasonable justification; or c) if there is no proportionality between the
aim sought and the means employed. 

The  Human  Rights  Committee  has  defined  discrimination  as  “any  distinction,  exclusion,
restriction or preference which  is based on  any  ground  such  as  race,  colour,  sex,  language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, and
which  has  the  purpose  or  effect  of  nullifying  or  impairing  the  recognition,  enjoyment  or
exercise by all persons, on an equal footing, of all rights and freedoms.” 

There are four features of this definition to note in connection with corruption. First, the acts
of discrimination are widely defined as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference,”
and a corrupt act intrinsically carries a distinction, exclusion and/or preference. Second, an act
of  discrimination  is  carried  out  on  the  basis  of  a  ground,  such  as  race,  colour,  and  sex.
However,  the phrase “other  status”  in  the definition of discrimination  shows  that  the  list of
prohibited  grounds  is  not  exhaustive.    Thus,  discrimination  on  the  basis  of  any  ground
including  corruption  is prohibited. Third,  the definition of discrimination prohibits  acts  that
have a discriminatory “purpose or effect.” Corruption has both a discriminatory purpose and
by definition creates a discriminatory effect. Fourth,  the discrimination must bring about  the
specific  result  of  nullifying  or  impairing  the  equal  recognition,  enjoyment  or  exercise  of
another  human  right,  such  as  the  right  to  life,  right  to  education,  or  right  to  health. Many
corruption cases have such effect and create a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference
of one or more persons when exercising a right. 

However, discrimination can also  take place even  if no specific  right apart from  the right  to
equality is affected. Article 26 of the ICCPR prohibits discrimination in law or in fact in any
field regulated and protected by public authorities and is not limited to those rights which are
provided  for  in  the  ICCPR.  For  instance, when  a  person  gets  a  privilege  in  the  process  of
obtaining an official document such as a passport or visa, or when a person bribes a customs
official and is allowed to clear goods from customs without paying duties and taxes, there is
no other human right affected but the right to equality, i.e. the right to be treated equally in the
process of obtaining  the visa or passport or when clearing goods  from  customs.   This  right
stands independently from other human rights. 

Thus, all persons are entitled to equality of treatment from public officials in the exercise of
their powers, duties, and functions. However, if a person bribes a public official, that person
acquires  a  privileged  status  in  relation  to  other  similarly  placed  individuals who  have  not
partaken in bribery. 

  34


Similarly, when a person is asked for a bribe in order to obtain a service to which the person
was entitled without any payment,  that person  is excluded  in  relation  to other  individuals  in
the  same  situation.  There  is  a  violation  of  the  rights  in  question  because  equal  cases  are
treated in a different manner and the difference in treatment results from a corruption which is
certainly not an objective and reasonable justification. 

Corrupt  practices  commonly  produce  an  unequal  and  discriminatory  enjoyment  of  human
rights. When  corruption  restricts  the  access  to  adequate  housing,  discrimination  is  taking
place. A person that is denied access to housing because he is not willing to pay the necessary
bribe  sees  his  right  to  housing  violated.  Housing  should  be  accessible  to  all,  and
disadvantaged groups in particular should be accorded some degree of priority consideration
in  the  housing  sphere.  In many  countries when  housing  programmes  are  implemented,  the
easiest way to obtain a house is by bribing the relevant person. In other occasions, people are
promised  alternative  housing  after  being  evicted. But  access  to  such  alternative  housing  is
often dependent upon bribing the person in charge of housing distribution. Sometimes, wellintentioned
 housing  subsidised programmes designed  for disadvantaged groups are hijacked
by administrators of the programme who require bribes in order to allocate low-cost housing
units.

Corruption  in  the  health  sector,  as  is  the  case  in  many  other  human  rights,  also  usually
violates  the  right  to  equality  and  non-discrimination. As  described  above, when  bribes  are
requested from patients, their access to health is severely restricted. Moreover, states have the
immediate obligation  to guarantee  that  the  right will be exercised without discrimination.  In
this  context,  there  is  an  interesting  link  between  bribes  paid  to  health  workers  and  the
accessibility and quality requirements of the health services. A study on corruption shows that
among  the people  that  admitted  to having paid  bribes  to obtain healthcare, 23%  stated  that
they were forced  to pay because  they could not get  the health service without paying, while
73% admitted to having paid bribes to either get a better treatment or to save time.57 Hence, if
a bribe was  required as a  response  to extortion  from a health worker or  to have access  to a
minimum standard of quality, there is direct violation of the right to health. 

Somehow different is the case of payments meant to be a token of gratitude or given to have
access  to higher  levels of quality of health services.  In  this case,  the elements of access and
quality  of  care  received  by  the  patient  are  sufficient.  Yet,  there  is  discrimination  in  the
provision of health services with regards to the rest of the patients. The right to equality and
non-discrimination applies  in  the enjoyment of all other human rights,  including  the right  to
health.  Hence,  even  if  the  bribe  or  informal  payment  has  no  effect  on  the  availability,
accessibility, or quality of health, such corrupt act still constitutes a violation of  the  right  to
health because it is provided in a discriminatory way. 

Corruption in the education sector also results in discrimination. When children are requested
to make informal payments, their access to education is not based on standards of equality but
on ability to pay a bribe, which amounts to discrimination and corruption. The Committee on
                                                
57 See, http://www.livemint.com/2007/05/02221904/Corruption-Catalogue-governme.html Also, for example, a
survey in Bangalore, India, showed that 17% of households that participated in the initiative (report cards)
claimed to have paid bribes in hospitals. The purpose of the bribes was mostly, to ensure good and proper
treatment, to pay for doctor's or other hospital staff services, to have the patient cleaned and looked after, as a
response to extortion from doctors, or simply as token of gratitude. See, K. Gopakumar, Transparency
International Working Paper, Citizen Feedback Surveys to Highlight Corruption in Public Services: The
Experience of Public Affairs Centre, Bangalore, 1998.

  35


Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has identified the failure to take measures that address
de  facto educational discrimination  to constitute a violation of  the  right  to education. Thus,
when  a  person  is  asked  for  a  bribe  in  order  to  access  education,  there  is  a  clear  de  facto
discrimination and  the state  is not complying with  its obligation  to respect  the enjoyment of
that person’s right to education.

Furthermore, corruption may have more of a tendency to negatively affect the human rights of
people  that belong  to a specific vulnerable group.  In highly corrupt environments where  the
enjoyment  of  certain  human  rights  is  dependent  on  bribes  people  belonging  to  vulnerable
groups usually  lack  the necessary economic resources and  thus may have no access  to basic
human rights. Also, often they are discriminated against through corrupt means. 

Vulnerable groups can see their rights violated by corrupt practices when the person partaking
in  corruption  wants  to  exploit  their  vulnerability  and  social  stigma  to  his  advantage.  For
instance, due to social stigma, it is unlikely that a person belonging to a vulnerable group will
publicly challenge the corrupt behaviour of a public official. Thus, vulnerable groups are easy
prey  for people partaking  in extortion. For example, a  survey carried out by  the  ILO  in  the
construction industry of a particular country showed how corrupt officials take advantage and
perpetuate  the  vulnerable  position  of  irregular migrant workers.58 All  respondents  claimed
that  they  had  been  repeatedly  under  pressure  from  law  enforcement  agencies.  A  worker
without  a  residence  permit  always  faces  the  threat  of  deportation,  which  has  led  to  the
emergence of a criminal business that blackmails and harasses these workers in order to extort
money. In addition, companies offer temporary permits that are usually forged, making these
migrants easy prey for corrupt law enforcement officers. For violating residency regulations,
police require migrants to hand over their passport, which can then only be retrieved for a fee.
Failing  this,  the passport  is handed over  to  the  intermediary, who  then  forces  the worker  to
pay  for  its  return.  Visibly,  corruption  can  magnify  and  exacerbate  existing  human  rights
problems of vulnerable groups. 

Furthermore, vulnerable groups may see their rights disproportionately affected when people
intentionally discriminate against them through corrupt means.  In the above case, the person
partaking  in  corruption  is mostly  concerned with  obtaining  an  advantage  by  exploiting  the
weakness of a person from a vulnerable group, but does not have an ultimate motive to further
discriminate  against  them.  In  this  case,  however,  corruption  is  specifically  used  as  tool  to
further  abuse  people  and  discriminate  against  them.  For  example,  people  belonging  to  a
vulnerable group may be asked to pay bribes precisely because they are part of a vulnerable
group.  There  are  reports  that  corruption  impacts  the  Roma  population  more  severely.
According  to  these  reports,  Roma, when  compared  to  other  people,  are  disproportionately
asked to pay bribes in order to have access to health and education.59

Those who partake in corruption systematically attempt to protect themselves by maintaining
the status quo. Persons  in a position of power  that are benefiting from corrupt practices will
attempt by all means,  including  further corruption,  to protect  themselves and maintain  their
position  of  power. As  a  consequence,  people  that  are  not  in  a  position  of  power,  such  as
                                                
58 I.L.O., A Global Alliance against Forced Labour: Report of the Director General, Global Report under the
Follow-up to the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work 2005, International Labour
Conference, 93rd Session 2005, Report I (B), p. 49, para. 232.
59 U.N. Econ. & Soc. Council, Report Submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the Sale of Children, Child
Prostitution and Child Pornography, Juan Miguel Petit: Addendum, Mission to Albania, U.N. Doc.
E/CN.4/2006/67/Add.2, 27 March 2006, para. 47.
  36


members of vulnerable groups, are further oppressed to prevent any change in social class and
power relations. In a nutshell, corruption reinforces the exclusion of vulnerable groups.