VN- Your book Fighting Grand Corruption is about to see the light of day and is the result of several years of work.  Can you tell us why you decided to write this book with an emphasis on victims of corruption and state capture, when your background has been in transitional justice and international human rights law?

NR- Precisely, I came to study grand corruption because of frustrations with the implementation of transitional justice. We worked with many people to clarify and disseminate the duties of truth, justice, reparation and non-repetition measures of the states, but I found that none of this worked if the impunity maintained by the corrupt was not attacked.  Similarly, in post-conflict periods, attacks on human rights defenders came from groups that no longer acted out of a national security ideology, but to protect dirty business. I thought that no transitional justice project was going to work without attacking systemic corruption.  In the book, I have a chapter on the subject, which recounts what happened in Guatemala, South Africa, Tunisia and also Colombia, and compares key factors. I also found that traditional human rights techniques—naming and shaming perpetrators—did not work well in situations of state capture, and that to achieve respect for human rights you had to understand and combat this corruption.

VN- At the last hearing of March 3 at the IACHR on State human rights obligations in the face of corruption, the Executive Secretary of the IACHR, Tania Reneaum, showed interest in the causal relationship between the recognition of victims of corruption and human rights violations, especially considering that its effects do not always occur immediately. What is your opinion on the best way to establish a connection between human rights and corruption?

NR- It is clear that corruption causes or contributes to a wide range of human rights violations. The damage produced can be individual, collective or social. There is causality first between corruption and the violation of human rights, and then between that violation and the harm produced.  In many countries, the necessary causal nexus is defined as being a “direct” victim.

-VN- What does it mean to you to be a “direct” victim?  

-The problem is that there are multiple causes of many damages, not only those arising from corruption; these are probabilities, not certainties.  Moreover, it is easier to establish the predominance of corruption as a cause when it is a private school not built because an official stole the funds, and more difficult when it is a national education budget, where more factors are involved between corruption and damage.  However, it is important to focus on the latter as an example of grand (high-level) corruption, because it causes more widespread damage.

VN- In chapter 4 you specify the role of sanctions and the use of courts in third states as a method to fight against grand corruption and state capture, as in the Venezuelan case. How do you think Venezuela could find hope for repair and reconstruction of its situation in your text?

NR- What has happened in Venezuela has been an economic and social disaster for the population, but not for the government leaders who have stolen billions of dollars; there are so far 264 open cases in 31 countries about corruption in Venezuela. Sanctions on individuals and companies (not the country, such non-discriminatory sanctions tend rather to be harmful) can disrupt the chain of extraction and money laundering. Criminal and civil judgments for laundering and other crimes in third countries could be used for a fund to redress victims, as has already been proposed for Venezuela. The International Criminal Court also has a Victims Fund that could be used: one of the things I propose is that the Court, in order to better understand the crimes against humanity in Venezuela, has to place them within a context of great corruption. 

VN- Grand corruption generally implies a lack of independence in power, in the face of a defenseless citizenry. After the important advances of the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG), setbacks and great damages were generated, for which the captured State itself should be held accountable. Could you expand a little more on this vision and the options that Guatemalan society has?

NR- CICIG in Guatemala had many successes: dismantling multiple corruption and organized criminal networks, some important reforms and great popular legitimacy. But it failed to foresee and act adequately against the inevitable backlash, and in some cases even exacerbated it. Nor did it succeed in getting Congress—dominated by the so-called “corrupt pact”—to pass necessary reforms on judicial independence, abuse of “amparo” or safeguards, or indigenous justice. Arévalo’s new government was able to take power in large part because of the support and actions of a citizenry tired of the corruption that CICIG had uncovered. But his government has not managed to remove a corrupt and undemocratic Attorney General, nor to create the necessary alliances in Congress.

VN- In Colombia, due to errors by the Council of State and the unwillingness of former Attorney General Cabello, the collective victims were left without financial compensation for the collective damage produced and recognized in the Odebrecht-Aval mega-corruption case, even though we were close, since the first instance did order this financial reparation. What do you think is the greatest difficulty for the recognition and reparation of the collective damage caused by grand corruption in Colombia?

NR- I think there are conceptual and practical difficulties. At the conceptual level, for many operators of justice, the concept of collective or social damage in corruption cases is confused with damage to the State itself, when they are two different things. At the practical level, there are sufficient laws, but there is a lack of implementation, for example, the Victims Fund created in 2022 or greater use of forfeiture of ownership in cases of grand corruption. Transparencia por Colombia has many publications on this. There are fears of judges and prosecutors that there are too many potential victims, but there is a need to dialogue with them in order to raise that comprehensive reparation is not the same as compensation, suggest ways to organize the representation of victims to make it agile.

VN- And what is the difference between compensation and full reparation?

Compensation refers to a much narrower concept of harm without moral content, while integral reparation takes into account that the harm suffered is not only economic and individual, but that there may be moral or emotional harm, collective harm (economic and otherwise), harm based on the lack of truth or justice, ecological harm, harm based on the failure to meet the reasonable expectations of the victims and injured parties. Reparation must be equally broad.

VN- Faced with the frustration of impunity for grand corruption, you ask if an International Anti-Corruption Court is justified and compare it with the virtues and defects of the International Criminal Court to illustrate the idea that there are many tools that we could put in place. Can you mention some of those tools to prosecute especially the assets and reparations for corruption that we are obliged as signatory States of the UNCAC?

NR- I don’t think that an International Anti-Corruption Tribunal is necessarily a bad idea, although in the current political conditions I doubt that there are enough states interested in the issue. What I do think is dangerous—from the experience of the first years of the ICC—is that we put all our eggs in one basket. We need to think about the whole range of prevention, accountability and reparations for victims. In many countries, for example, there is a lack of laws on forfeiture of ownership, or laws that allow the participation of victims from the country of origin in asset recovery processes, or jurisdiction over corruption and transnational money laundering. 

VN- To close, I would like to know your opinion on the democratic suffocation and attacks on the rule of law in the USA.  In particular, I am thinking about the suspension of the US law that punishes companies for paying bribes or kickbacks abroad (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act- FCPA). What options are left to deter the grand corruption that may be brewing in the accumulation of power and disrespect for the law in the US, including foreign competitions? Do you think that seeking reparations for individual and collective victims of corruption in different courts represents a substitute for what lies ahead?

NR- The truth is that this administration’s vicious attacks on the rule of law, and its open and unfeigned corruption, are manifold. It’s not just what you mention about the FCPA, but the attacks on lawyers, judges, universities and the media, the firings of inspectors general and executive oversight offices, Musk’s access to private citizen data (including data on his competitors), and much more, that made Foreign Policy magazine wonder if America is becoming a kleptocracy and others talk about a classic case of state capture. So far, there is no collective response. Without a coordinated strategy to combat the mob tactics being used, I see the outlook as quite dark. It may be that the cuts that have already begun to social security and healthcare, and an economic crisis will cause the American public to react, in the streets and in the 2026 elections. But also if this situation leads to a better popular understanding of the mechanisms of corruption, including political and public contract corruption for example, the groundwork can be laid for real reforms. That has always been the history of the US: out of crises and abuses come change.   

I could ask many more questions and I think Naomi would have great answers….something in my conscience tells me I would want Naomi to be my new best friend, but space is limited and time is short. I hope Fighting Grand Corruption comes out soon so we can devour it.