CCPR/C/120/D/2285/2013 agricultural lands near their houses to be part of their home. The agricultural land used by the authors as the primary means of livelihood or occupation falls under the scope of article 17. Furthermore, the authors were subjected to unlawful interference with their rights under article 17. The building, marketing and selling of housing units to Israeli settlers by the two corporations are activities prohibited by international law, including the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention) and therefore are unlawful within the meaning of article 17. Furthermore, the Committee has held that the protections under this article apply to “interferences and attacks whether they emanate from State authorities or from natural or legal persons”,3 and that States parties are under a duty themselves not to engage in interferences inconsistent with article 17 and to provide the legislative framework prohibiting such acts by natural or legal persons.4 3.4 The two corporations engaged in activities that have resulted in violations of articles 17 and 7 of the Covenant by means of unlawful and arbitrary interference with the authors’ homes. Therefore, Canada violated its extraterritorial obligation to guarantee these provisions by not providing effective remedies for the authors to hold the two corporations accountable for the violations and by not adequately regulating the corporations to ensure that their activities did not violate these provisions. 3.5 The authors further claim to be victims of violations of article 27. While they are not members of an ethnic minority per se, they are members of the indigenous Palestinian population and their culture, including agricultural production and related close connection with the land, is being destroyed in order to construct the illegal settlements, to which they have no access. Because the two corporations are complicit in the violation of article 27 by Israel, Canada violated its extraterritorial obligation to guarantee article 27 by not providing to the authors effective remedies to hold the two corporations accountable for these violations and by not regulating the corporations adequately to ensure that their activities did not violate article 27. 3.6 The authors cite international norms and pronouncements which, in their view, make clear that Canada has extraterritorial obligations under the Covenant, including the obligation to protect or to ensure Covenant rights by regulating the activities of Canadian corporations for activities undertaken abroad, and to investigate and appropriately sanction any activities that violate human rights and ensure that remedies are available to victims of those violations. Thus, under article 16 of the draft articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, responsibility may be shared between two States for an internationally wrongful act. Furthermore, the Committee has implied that even where a person is located outside a State’s territory, jurisdiction or effective control, States retain their obligation to respect and ensure the rights in the Covenant. The authors cite the Committee’s concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Germany, wherein the Committee stated: While welcoming measures taken by the State party to provide remedies against German companies acting abroad allegedly in contravention of relevant human rights standards, the Committee is concerned that such remedies may not be sufficient in all cases (art. 2, para. 2). The State party is encouraged to set out clearly the expectation that all business enterprises domiciled in its territory and/or its jurisdiction respect human rights standards in accordance with the Covenant throughout their operations. It is also encouraged to take appropriate measures to strengthen the remedies provided to protect people who have been victims of activities of such business enterprises operating abroad.5 3.7 The authors also quote the Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted in 2011 by leading international human rights experts. While the Principles focus on economic, social and cultural rights, the principle of indivisibility and interrelatedness of rights means that they 3 4 5 4 See general comment No. 16 (1988) on the right to privacy, para. 1. Ibid., para. 9. See CCPR/C/DEU/CO/6, para. 16. GE.17-21900