A/HRC/17/35 10. Recognizing this gap, the Special Rapporteur considers that conceptual clarification of this right and analysis of good practices and main challenges may benefit States in ensuring the effective implementation of the right at the national level. It is further her hope that the report will provide guidance to practitioners working in this field, including lawyers, human rights defenders, academics, and international and non-governmental organizations. 11. The Special Rapporteur expresses gratitude to experts and stakeholders who provided valuable inputs to the development of the present report. In particular, she wishes to thank those who participated in the expert consultation held in Bratislava on 22 and 23 November 2010, and in the online discussion forum at the United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking website (UN.GIFT.HUB) from 2 to 21 February 2011. The summary note of the online discussion is included in the present report as annex II. 12. In this chapter, the Special Rapporteur sets out the legal framework of the right to an effective remedy for trafficked persons under international law and discusses when and how the obligation of States to provide remedies arises. She then analyses essential components of this right in the context of trafficked persons and discusses fundamental principles to be taken into account in the case of trafficked children. In chapter IV of the report, the Special Rapporteur offers conclusions and recommendations for States’ consideration. Annex I of the report contains the draft basic principles on the right to an effective remedy for trafficked persons. B. Legal framework of the right to an effective remedy for trafficked persons 13. It is a well-established doctrine of international law that a State has an obligation to redress wrongs where an act or omission is attributable to it and constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State.1 While this doctrine of State responsibility has traditionally applied between States, it also extends to wrongs committed against individuals.2 14. The first requirement of State responsibility is that the relevant act or omission is attributable to the State. The conduct of any State organs and agents acting under the direction, instigation or control of those organs is clearly attributed to the State.3 In general, the conduct of private persons is not as such attributable to the State.4 The second requirement is that the relevant act or omission attributed to a State constitutes a breach of an international obligation of that State. 15. On face value, State responsibility may seem difficult to establish in cases of trafficking, as trafficking is often committed by private individuals, criminal groups and networks acting without instructions from, the direction of or control by a State. However, the fact that the relevant act or omission was conducted by private persons does not necessarily absolve the State of its responsibility, as State responsibility may arise “if it 1 2 3 4 4 See General Assembly resolution 56/83 on the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, annex, arts. 2 and 31. M. Cherif Bassiouni, “International recognition of victims’ rights”, Human Rights Law Review, vol. 6, No. 2 (2006), p. 211. Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/56/10), chap. IV, para. 77 (Draft articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, general commentary, part one, chap. II, para. 2). General Assembly resolution 56/83, annex, art. 8.