A/HRC/40/59 deprivation of liberty used a broader, more elaborate understanding of corruption as “dishonest misuse or abuse of a position of power to secure undue personal gain or advantage, or to secure undue gain or advantage for a third party” (CAT/C/52/2, para. 73). 13. Building on these proposals, and having in mind the existing body of treaty law, the present report will use the concept of corruption as referring to the “abuse of entrusted or appropriated power to secure an undue advantage for any person or entity”. In principle, it should be irrelevant for a finding of corruption whether the abuse of power occurs by act or by omission, whether the transfer of an undue advantage actually takes place or whether it is merely offered or requested, and whether the perpetrators are State officials or non-State actors placed in a comparable position of power. Furthermore, “undue advantages” should be interpreted to include not only money or tangible goods, but also “favours” such as sexual acts, labour, or acts or omissions aiming to secure favourable outcomes in administrative or judicial proceedings, or unduly preventing, suspending or terminating such proceedings. 2. Contextual prevalence and levels of corruption 14. Corruption is widely practised both in developed and in developing States, although its characteristics may vary from context to context. As the Subcommittee has observed, “while corruption in developed countries is often more sophisticated, subtle and less visible than in developing countries, and hence may be more difficult to detect, that does not mean that it is not present” (CAT/C/52/2, para. 83). Moreover, both States and business corporations belonging to the “developed” world often contribute to, or are even responsible for, corruption in “developing” countries (ibid., paras. 74–75 and 83). Indeed, corruption in one country can be triggered, facilitated or fostered by political, corporate or other actors in other countries. 15. Corruption can manifest on all levels of local, national and international authority and is usually categorized as “petty” or “grand” corruption and, sometimes, as “political” corruption. “Petty” corruption occurs primarily where people directly interact with mid- or low-level officials when trying to access basic public goods and services and generally involves comparatively modest sums of money or other individualized benefits. Petty corruption is widespread and pervasive in many countries, contexts and situational “niches” throughout the world and has been frequently encountered by the Special Rapporteur and other anti-torture mechanisms, especially in environments where the risk of torture and illtreatment is highest, such as in places of detention and other institutionalization, in extracustodial police practices and across various stages of irregular migrants’ journeys (A/HRC/13/39/Add.5, paras. 64–66; A/HRC/37/50, paras. 8, 30–34; and CAT/C/52/2, para. 80). 16. By contrast, “grand” corruption involves high-level public officials and often large sums of money or other benefits, such as the misallocation of State resources and the sale or otherwise undue provision of political appointments or lucrative public procurement or licensing contracts. When grand corruption involves the manipulation of policies, institutions and procedures by political decision makers in order to sustain their power, status and wealth or to secure undue benefits for their relatives and political entourage, it is sometimes also referred to as “political” corruption. Typical examples of this variation of grand corruption include vote buying, illicit campaign funding and the silencing of political opposition. All forms of grand corruption betray good governance and the public interest, deplete or divert public resources, severely undermine the proper functioning of public services and institutions and are conducive to the spread of corruption throughout society. Thus, grand corruption can permeate government policy and law-making, the implementation of the law and the administration of justice in ways which undermine or even paralyse every aspect of the fight against torture and ill-treatment, from misappropriating or otherwise diverting or depleting resources that should have been used for the prevention and redress of torture and ill-treatment, to condoning or enabling torture and ill-treatment or ensuring impunity for such abuse. 5