BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS / Šturma, Mozetic (eds)

in the territory or jurisdiction of the State respect human rights standards in accordance with the Covenant throughout their operations. 36 The Committee has also recommended provision of remedies for victims of activities of business enterprises operating abroad. 37 The treaty bodies have referred to the various business enterprises and sectors in concluding observations, including agriculture, extractive industry, forestry, development projects, private health or social security scheme and funds, banking, hospitality industry, media and privately operated detention facilities. The fact that the treaty bodies have mentioned some particular sectors should not be understood as a sign that they do not consider States responsible for protecting against abuses by other type of enterprises or in other sectors. On the contrary, all treaty bodies may examine States’ obligations in relation to any corporate act in any field of activity. 38 Jurisprudence of the human rights treaty bodies Treaty bodies considered number of individual complaints involving operation of business enterprises. The question in most of these cases was whether the measures taken by the State party ensured that the business policy and operations have not a harmful impact on human rights protected by a respective treaty. The Human Rights Committee has examined allegations of the violation of the Covenant in connection with operations of business entities on several occasions. Some cases involved alleged violations of rights of indigenous people or minorities as a result of business activities. For example, in the case of the Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada, 39 the Committee has found the violation of the Covenant in connection with the expropriation of the territory of the Lubicon Lake Band for the benefit of private corporate interests, including leases for oil and gas exploration. Such developments, according to the Committee, threatened the way of life and culture of the Lubicon Lake Band and were contrary to the article 27 of the Covenant as long as they continued. In Hopu and Bessert v. France , 40 the Human Rights Committee has concluded that the construction of a hotel complex on the complainants’ ancestral burial grounds, which represent an important place in their history, culture and life, did interfere with their right to family and privacy. The State party has not shown that this interference was reasonable in the circumstances, and did not duly took into account the importance of the burial grounds for the complainants, when it decided to lease the site for the building of a hotel complex. Some cases dealt with by the Human Rights Committee involved consideration of responsibility of State party for acts of a business company. In Hertzberg et al. v. Finland , 41 the Human Rights Committee has started from the premise that the 36 Concluding observations: Germany (CCPR/C/DEU/CO/6). 37 Ibid., Republic of Korea (CCPR/C/KOR/CO/4). 38 See the Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, footnote 5, page 18. 39 Communication No. 167/1984 (26 March 1990), U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/45/40) at 1 (1990). 40 Communication No. 549/1993, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/60/D/549/1993/Rev.1. (1997). 41 Communication No. 61/1979, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1 at 124 (1985).

70