State. Examples could include a Government official who employs a domestic servant who has been trafficked into that position, or a law enforcement official who maintains a private commercial interest in a brothel that exploits trafficked women. In such cases it will be necessary to question whether the conduct is “systematic or recurrent, such that the State knew or ought to have known of it and should have taken steps to prevent it” (art. 7, para. 8). If so, it should be possible to attribute such “official” involvement to the State without further analysis of the conduct itself. If, on the other hand, the relevant conduct would be better described as “isolated instances of outrageous conduct on the part of persons who are officials”, then a distinction will need to be made between conduct which, while unauthorized, is undertaken with apparent authority (or, under “the colour of authority”),243 and purely private conduct. Apparent authority could be inferred in the second example provided in the previous paragraph, by showing that it is the official position of that individual that gives him or her the knowledge and protection making it possible to operate and maintain an unlawful, commercially successful operation. In other words, the conduct was only possible because of the individual’s official position and use of apparent authority. Additional evidence pointing to attribution could include, for example, the use of official vehicles to transport trafficked persons, the use of police intelligence to avoid raids, or the use of law enforcement colleagues to provide “protection”. Under the United States Restatement, “A State is responsible for any violation of its obligations under international law resulting from action or inaction by … (c) any organ, agency, official, employee or other agent of a government or any political sub-division, acting within the scope of authority or under colour of such authority”: American Law Institute, Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (1987), sect. 207. 243 THE DUE DILIGENCE STANDARD AND PUBLICSECTOR COMPLICITY IN TRAFFICKING Principle 6 requires States to exercise due diligence in identifying and dealing with public-sector complicity in trafficking. As noted above in the discussion of Principle 2 and related guidelines, the due diligence standard is commonly used to identify the obligations on States when it comes to responding to acts by private entities that interfere with established rights. The relevant principles confirm that failure to meet this standard, in terms of preventing an anticipated human rights abuse by a private entity, or to respond effectively to such an abuse, will invoke the responsibility of the State. Due diligence is also the appropriate standard in the following situations: • In evaluating whether the State has taken sufficient steps to prevent involvement in trafficking by its officials; and • In evaluating whether the State has discharged its obligation to identify, investigate and punish public-sector complicity in trafficking. The discussion on due diligence under Principle 2 and related guidelines confirmed that deciding whether or not a State is meeting the due diligence standard ultimately comes down to an assessment of whether it is taking its obligations to prevent, respect, protect and fulfil human rights seriously. In the present context, those obligations include preventing and responding to public-sector complicity in the human rights violations associated with trafficking. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has spelled out the steps that should be taken to deal with violations of human rights involving public officials: In order to combat impunity, stringent measures should be adopted to ensure that all allegations of human rights violations are promptly and impartially investigated, that the COMMENTARY 121