BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS / Šturma, Mozetic (eds)

paragraph 2 (b), of the Convention, since none of the measures taken by the State party ensured the accessibility to the banking card services provided by the ATMs operated by OTP for the complainants or other persons in a similar situation. The complaint S.C. v. Brazil , 46 that was considered inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, concerned practice of the private bank, Banco de Brasil, requiring the demotion of any staff member who remains on medical leave for more than three or six months. The complainant alleged that such a policy promotes discrimination based on disability, and argued that she has not enjoyed the same working conditions and opportunities as her colleagues with equivalent skills due to her impairment. The complaint F. v. Austria 47 concerned the failure of the State-owned transport company, Linz Linien GmbH, to install an audio system on a tram line to enable visually impaired and hearing impaired people to access all important information without outside assistance. Affirming violation of the Convention, the Committee requested the State to remedy the lack of accessibility to the information available for all lines of the tram network. A few above examples of treaty bodies’ jurisprudence attest to the relevance and potential of complaint procedure under the respective treaties to examine an impact of business activities on human rights guaranteed by the respective treaty. They also show a variety of concerns that may be raised – from expropriation of land from indigenous people for extractive industry or development projects to a business policy and practice towards the company’s clients or employees, including issues such as discrimination on a basis of race, nationality or disability. While the decisions are addressed to the State parties, they also contain important messages for the business enterprises on how to fulfil the ever-growing expectations of their compliance with the human rights standards. Enterprises in General Comments of the treaty bodies General comments of the treaty bodies confirm the positive obligation of the State parties to protect against abuse by non-state actors, such as “private actors”, “private entities”, “private agencies”, which comprise also business enterprises.While many treaty bodies specifically referred to business enterprises in various general comments, 48 only two Committees, CRC and CESCR Committee, have adopted specific general comments focusing on obligations of State parties in the context of business activities. The more recent of the two specific general comments, namely the General Comment No. 24 (2017) on State obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the context of business activities, 49 reiterates that discrimination in 48 For example, CESCR Committee has referred to business activities in its following general comments: No. 14 (2000) on the right to the highest attainable standard of health, No. 4 (1991) on the right to adequate housing, No. 12 (1999) on the right to adequate food, No. 15 (2002) on the right to water, No. 19 (2007) on the right to social security, No. 18 (2005) on the right to work, No. 23 (2016) on the right to just and favourable conditions of work. 49 The General Comment No. 24 (2017) on State obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the context of business activities, E/C.12/GC/24, 10 August 2017. The General Comment builds on the previous CESCR Committee general comments, its Statement on State obligations related to corporate responsibilities in the context of the Covenant rights (2011) and takes into 46 Communication No. 10/2013, CRPD/C/12/D/10/2013, 28 October 2014. 47 Communication No. 21/2014, CRPD/C/14/D/21/2014, 21 September 2015.

72