CCPR/C/120/D/2285/2013 Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights state that “States are not generally required under international human rights law to regulate the extraterritorial activities of businesses domiciled in their territory and/or jurisdiction”.8 However, this does not mean that States do not have any obligations under the human rights treaties in connection with the activities of businesses operating abroad or that their responsibility in that respect can never be incurred. 9 With regard to the Covenant, such obligations may exist where a jurisdictional link is established with persons affected by such activities. Such a link of jurisdiction may be established, as the Committee suggests in this case, on the basis of: (a) the effective capacity of the State to regulate the activities of the businesses concerned and (b) the actual knowledge that the State had of those activities and their necessary and foreseeable consequences in terms of violations of human rights recognized in the Covenant. 11. Once the issue of “jurisdiction” is resolved, other issues are raised. It must be determined, in particular, whether the authors are “victims” within the meaning of article 1 of the Optional Protocol.10 It must then be determined on the merits whether, in the present case, the State party has respected its obligations under the Covenant towards persons affected by extraterritorial activities of corporations and, specifically, whether it has taken the necessary positive measures, in terms of either legislative framework or remedies, to ensure rights. This question raises another set of issues, which, following on from its jurisprudence on the responsibility of States in connection with acts committed by private persons, 11 the Committee seems to wish to resolve by referring to the standard of “due diligence”. We cannot, within the necessarily limited framework of this opinion, address these issues which, in our view, are distinct from that of competence/jurisdiction. It is undoubtedly a shortcoming of the decision that the Committee that could not or did not wish to make those distinctions clearer. 8 9 10 11 16 See the commentary to principle 2, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework. See, for example, in the framework of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 24 (2017), paras. 25 ff., adopted shortly before the Human Rights Committee considered the present communication. Other committees tend towards similar conclusions, although we cannot cite all the references because of the word limit imposed by the United Nations for the total length of decisions. See, finally, communication No. 2124/2011, Rabbae, A.B.S. and N.A. v. the Netherlands, Views adopted on 14 July 2016, para. 9.6. See in particular general comment No. 31, para. 8, as above. GE.17-21900