67. 如上文关于一般性意见的第二节所述，除了敲诈勒索案件之外，很难确定腐败的直接受害者。毒品和犯罪问题办公室强调指出，《联合国反腐败公约》各缔约国在确定受害者及其赔偿参数方面存在很大差异，各缔约国对侵犯人权行为与腐败案件之间联系的看法也存在很大差异。在最近一份关于依照《公约》确定并赔偿所有不同类型受害人的最佳做法，以及有关第三方的难题及其对第五章下资产追回的影响的说明中，强调了国家以及法人和自然人都有寻求赔偿的可能性(CAC/COSP/WG.2/2019/5, 第 3 段)。还指出，腐败可能直接使人受到伤害，但也可能对整个社会产生不利影响，在这方面，社会损害的概念存在于一些法域，允许对公共利益损害进行赔偿(同上，第 9 段)。
67. As mentioned in section II above on general observations, apart from the case of extortion, it can be difficult to identify the direct victims of corruption. UNODC has highlighted that the identification of victims and of parameters for their compensation varies significantly between States parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption, as do the perceptions of States parties with regard to the link between human rights violations and cases of corruption. In a recent note on best practices for the identification and compensation of all different types of victims in accordance with the Convention, and third-party challenges and their impact on asset recovery under chapter V, it was emphasized that the possibility of seeking compensation should be available to States as well as legal and natural persons (CAC/COSP/WG.2/2019/5, para. 3). It was also pointed out that corruption may victimize people directly, but may also negatively affect society as a whole and, in this context, that the concept of social damage existed in some jurisdictions and allowed compensation for damages to the public interest (ibid., para. 9).