CCPR/C/120/D/2285/2013 are relevant to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well. Principle 3 states: “All States have obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights, including civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights, both within their territories and extraterritorially”. The Principles include the obligation to ensure protection of human rights from violation by non-State actors, including corporations. Thus, according to principle 24: “All States must take necessary measures to ensure that non-State actors which they are in a position to regulate, as set out in Principle 25, such as private individuals and organisations, and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, do not nullify or impair the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. These include administrative, legislative, investigative, adjudicatory and other measures. All other States have a duty to refrain from nullifying or impairing the discharge of this obligation to protect”. Principle 25 states: “States must adopt and enforce measures to protect economic, social and cultural rights through legal and other means, including diplomatic means, in each of the following circumstances: … (b) where the non-State actor has the nationality of the State concerned; (c) as regards business enterprises, where the corporation, or its parent or controlling company, has its centre of activity, is registered or domiciled, or has its main place of business or substantial business activities, in the State concerned”. Principle 27, inter alia, elaborates on the general obligation to provide an effective remedy: “All States must cooperate to ensure that non-State actors do not impair the enjoyment of the economic, social and cultural rights of any persons. This obligation includes measures to prevent human rights abuses by non-State actors, to hold them to account for any such abuses, and to ensure an effective remedy for those affected”. 3.8 Principle 26 of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework stipulates that “States should take appropriate steps to ensure the effectiveness of domestic judicial mechanisms when addressing business-related human rights abuses, including considering ways to reduce legal, practical and other relevant barriers that could lead to a denial of access to remedies”. Such legal barriers can include “where claimants face a denial of justice in a host State and cannot access home State courts regardless of the merits of the claim”.6 3.9 Given the dismissal of their claims in Canada on the ground of forum non conveniens, the authors never had the opportunity to be fully heard and have their case decided on the merits. Consequently, they were denied access to any effective remedy. 3.10 The extraterritorial obligation to protect or ensure human rights also entails regulating corporations incorporated under a State’s jurisdiction. Since the two corporations are incorporated in Canada, the State party has an obligation to ensure that they do not violate human rights at home or abroad, including human rights protected by the Covenant. 3.11 Absent exceptional circumstances, only the conduct of the organs of the State may be attributable to the State and thus engage its responsibility. However, such conduct includes the failure of the State to adopt regulations, or to implement them effectively, where such a failure is in violation of the human rights undertakings of the State. This principle has been affirmed by human rights bodies, including the Committee. 7 The authors 6 7 GE.17-21900 See A/HRC/17/31, commentary to principle 26. The authors cite paragraph 8 of general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, according to which “the positive obligations on States parties to ensure Covenant rights will only be fully discharged if individuals are protected by the State, not just against violations of Covenant rights by its agents, but also against acts committed by private persons or entities that would impair the enjoyment of Covenant rights insofar as they are amenable to application between private persons or entities”. The authors also cite the concluding observations on Canada of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in 2007, in which the Committee called upon Canada to “take appropriate legislative or administrative measures to prevent acts of transnational corporations registered in Canada which negatively impact on the enjoyment of rights of indigenous peoples in territories outside Canada”, recommending in particular that the State party “explore ways to hold transnational corporations registered in Canada accountable” (see CERD/C/CAN/CO/18, para. 17). In its concluding observations on the United States of America in 2008, the same Committee encouraged the State party “to take appropriate legislative or administrative measures to prevent acts of transnational corporations registered in the 5