The idea that individuals may have a legal right to live free of corruption is gaining traction in judicial and academic discourse. Traditionally, corruption has been addressed through criminal, administrative and civil measures, with courts often viewing it as a context for human rights violations rather than a violation in itself. A growing number of legal decisions, especially in Latin America, are beginning to treat corruption as a direct infringement on human rights.
Three conceptual approaches frame this relationship. The first treats corruption as a contextual factor that enables the violation of rights, such as health or education. The second employs a human rights-based framework to identify similarities between human rights and anti-corruption law, including state obligations regarding prevention and accountability and procedural similarities like participation, transparency and protection of whistleblowers. The third asserts that individuals possess a distinct right to live free of corruption. Though still controversial, this approach can enable, in some contexts, broader access to justice and ease evidentiary burdens.
Critics argue that this right lacks textual support in human rights treaties and existing practice, and requires definitional clarity: after all, no society is completely free of corruption, and it is not yet clear what the contours of such a right would be. Vigilance is also required in creating new rights without the capacity to adequately monitor their implementation. However, supporters cite its constitutional and procedural advantages, and its value in shifting focus to victims. Like the right to a healthy environment, it is seen as a composite of existing rights and a natural progression in rights jurisprudence. Focusing only on criminal sanctions in anti-corruption law may miss opportunities for advancing the anti-corruption agenda, which a right to be free of corruption may capture.
Case studies
Six case studies demonstrate how this concept is being used in practice.
In Argentina, the civil society group Poder Ciudadano was granted standing in a criminal corruption case by invoking a provision for grave human rights violations. The court accepted that corruption could meet this threshold, thus enhancing access to justice.
In El Salvador, the Constitutional Chamber upheld a forfeiture law by classifying the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) as a human rights treaty. The court ruled that corruption constitutes direct and indirect violations of fundamental rights, enabling the integration of international law into domestic constitutional review.
Costa Rican courts tied corruption to social harm and integrated it into the constitutional right to a healthy environment. This broader interpretation allowed courts to recognise a right to live in a corruption-free environment and provide legal redress for collective harms.
In Mexico, within several converging trends in the law, some local courts have referred to the right to be free of corruption. Yet, outcomes were mixed. While some courts allowed civic groups and individuals to bring corruption-related claims, others denied victims’ interventions, arguing that the interest of society was not enough. Although, no explicit right to be free of corruption exists in national law, there is an emerging trend to use this right as a concept to resolve disputes over the ability of individuals and civil society groups to represent collective interests in corruption cases.
South Africa’s Constitutional Court held that the government has a constitutional obligation to establish independent anti-corruption mechanisms. While it did not directly recognise a right to be free of corruption, it implied such a right as the counterpart to the state’s duty to prevent corruption.
Sri Lankan courts used the public trust doctrine and equal protection principles to hold officials accountable for corrupt practices. Although they did not cite a formal right to be free of corruption, the rulings reinforced the government duty to act in the public interest.
Implications
Asserting a right to be free of corruption has practical utility. Courts can use the concept to expand victim standing and access to court, establish collective harm, reduce evidentiary thresholds, apply international law domestically, and expand the definition of ‘environment’ or ‘public trust’. This approach helps focus on victims and reframe corruption as a public harm.
Judges and lawyers have creatively employed constitutional law, environmental rights and procedural norms to support such claims. In some jurisdictions, the privileged position of domestic human rights law has been important. Civil society groups have driven many of these cases, using litigation to secure oversight and transparency.
However, the definition and scope of the right remain uncertain. It is unclear whether non-criminal conduct or isolated instances of corruption would qualify. Further clarification will be needed as more cases arise. A limitation to a right to be free of grand corruption or systemic corruption might prove useful.
Conclusion
Governments that frame the right to be free of corruption as a legal right may be able to enshrine that right in the constitution or in law, as well as use broader legal reforms to facilitate public law enforcement of anti-corruption standards. Legal frameworks must ensure that victims and civic actors can participate meaningfully in anti-corruption proceedings.
Donors can support strategic litigation, judicial training and procedural reforms that broaden access and integrate human rights into anti-corruption work. Strengthening legal empowerment initiatives will support systemic reform.
Civil society should continue experimenting with public interest litigation and seek recognition of victims’ rights. Collaboration with affected communities will enhance the evidentiary base for claims. Engagement with international forums may further shape jurisprudence.
Advancing corruption as a human rights issue can reinforce both anti-corruption and human rights agendas. It provides tools for accountability, empowers victims, and strengthens democratic governance by placing emphasis on public interest and fairness.
