Doha, December 18 (QNA) - A session held on Thursday evening as part of the 11th session of the Conference of the States Parties (CoSP11) to the United Nations Convention against Corruption discussed ways to enhance the use of non-judicial settlement mechanisms in corruption cases, as complementary tools to traditional law enforcement, particularly in complex cross-border cases.

The session focused on the role of these mechanisms in expediting procedures, reducing litigation costs, and achieving practical results in asset recovery and international cooperation. It also emphasized that the absence of globally standardized frameworks necessitates the development of guiding principles based on relevant international agreements, while respecting the constitutional and legal specificities of each country and ensuring that such settlements do not undermine deterrence, accountability, or public trust.

The participants agreed that the growing reliance on non-judicial settlements, both nationally and internationally, reflects a shift in approaches to combating corruption. However, it also raises legal and institutional questions concerning standards, transparency, ensuring justice, and the rights of affected states. They emphasized that the success of these mechanisms depends on their integration within the criminal justice system, not treating them as a replacement for it.

In his remarks, representative of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) considered that non-judicial settlements represent an important potential source of asset recovery, but they need further study and the development of standards based on the principles of the United Nations Convention against Corruption.

He noted that the agreement includes specific mechanisms for asset recovery, but it does not clearly highlight non-judicial settlements as an independent tool, which opens the door to wide variation in practices between countries.

He pointed out that the available data shows that a large number of settlements are concentrated in countries that were not the direct scene of corruption incidents, which highlights an existing gap between supply and demand countries, and raises problems related to the fairness of the distribution of proceeds and the priority of the rights of affected countries.

In turn, representative of the National Anti-Corruption Commission in Australia considered that the adoption of non-judicial settlements was linked to legislative and institutional reforms aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of law enforcement, by encouraging self-reporting, expanding the scope of criminal liability, and increasing penalties associated with bribery and corruption offenses.

He indicaetd that this approach contributed to achieving practical results without resorting to lengthy trials, while preserving the powers of the judiciary. He stressed that transparency in announcing the results of settlements remains a fundamental condition for maintaining their deterrent effect and the confidence of society.

For its part, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) stressed that settlements outside the framework of the judiciary should not be understood as a tolerance of corruption, but rather as an effective enforcement tool if they are well designed and implemented within an integrated criminal justice system.

The UNDP warned against the risks of misusing these mechanisms or turning them into a privilege for certain groups, stressing the need to provide clear legal and procedural guarantees, to take into account the differences between constitutional and legal systems, and to reject the adoption of a unified approach that does not take into account the different national contexts.

In the same context, an official at the National Financial Prosecutor's Office in France believes that settlement agreements that include financial penalties, mandatory compliance programs, and asset seizure procedures have contributed to accelerating procedures and enhancing the effectiveness of prosecutions in complex cases.

He noted that these mechanisms enabled authorities to access internal evidence through institutional cooperation, helped to establish a culture of compliance within companies, and improved international coordination on cross-border issues, paving the way for fairer and more effective joint settlements in the future.

A speaker from Brazil Office of the Comptroller General also addressed the importance of linking non-judicial settlements to clear procedures for compensating those affected, and promoting the participation of requesting countries in asset recovery pathways.

He stressed that bridging the gap between supply and demand countries requires more organized international cooperation that ensures the involvement of affected countries in the negotiation and implementation phases, and that settlements are not limited to the financial aspect only. (QNA)