A/HRC/30/35 workplaces, the role of private security firms, the presence of organized criminals attracted by high value commodities such as gold or other minerals, and the growth of illegal, unlicensed or unregulated mines and forestry operations that benefit from weak regulation and law enforcement. C. Steps taken by States to comply with their duty to ensure business accountability for ending contemporary forms of slavery in supply chains 28. States have an obligation under international human rights law to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of all persons in their territory and/or jurisdiction. This includes the duty to protect individuals and groups against human rights abuses committed by private actors, such as business enterprises. The Human Rights Committee, in paragraph 8 of its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of general legal obligations on States Parties to the Covenant, stipulates the need for States to exercise due diligence to prevent, punish, investigate or redress the harm caused by private persons or entities. 29. The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights,25 unanimously endorsed by the Human Rights Council in 2011, validate the duty of States to protect against and redress business-related human rights harms, and it is stipulated therein that this is to be done through effective policies, legislation, regulations and adjudication (principle 1). State duties include setting out clearly the expectation that all business enterprises domiciled in their territory and/or jurisdiction respect human rights throughout their operations (principle 2). 30. In the context of contemporary forms of slavery, this duty to protect could translate into a smart mix of measures to ensure that businesses engage in their responsibility to respect human rights, including through undertaking human rights due diligence throughout their supply chains and remediating the adverse impact of their operations on human rights. At the very minimum, States should ensure that businesses realize the implications of purchasing products or services that have in any way been linked to forced labour or other contemporary forms of slavery. To date, States have adopted diverse approaches to addressing this issue, which include ensuring criminal, civil and tort liability for businessrelated human rights violations, setting up mechanisms to regulate such compliance in trade and consumer protection and addressing it in government procurement. Disclosure and transparency can also feature as legal obligations rather than being limited to voluntary corporate social responsibility initiatives.26 31. In the most recent development, in March 2015, the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed the Modern Slavery Bill, which includes a specific part on transparency in supply chains and imposes obligations on businesses to disclose the steps, if any, they are taking to address contemporary forms of slavery in supply chains. 27 The duties imposed in 25 26 27 In the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which operationalize Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and Human Rights, the different roles and responsibilities of States (first pillar) and businesses (second pillar) to address their impact on human rights and the access to remedy for business-related human rights abuse (third pillar) are clarified. For a detailed analysis of different regulatory frameworks, see International Corporate Accountability Roundtable report, “Human Rights Due Diligence: The role of States” (2012) (http://icar.ngo/wpcontent/uploads/2012/12/Human-Rights-Due-Diligence-The-Role-of-States.pdf). It is widely acknowledged that the provisions for transparency in supply chains were inserted largely owing to advocacy conducted by the Ethical Trading Initiative, a multi-stakeholder partnership of businesses, trade unions and non-governmental organizations, covering over 70 companies and in 2015 reaching nearly 10 million workers across the globe. 9