A/HRC/29/25 32. This race to the bottom may benefit the business sector, but it is often to the detriment of individuals and communities living on land slated for natural resource exploitation. For businesses, time is money, and consultation with communities is rarely seen as “efficient”. At best, States may discourage drawn-out consultation processes that genuinely take into account the concerns of affected communities. At worst, States may resort to harassment and persecution of members of these communities, as well as members of associations investigating alleged violations or people having organized or participated in protests, as noted by the Working Group on Business and Human Rights (see A/HRC/23/32, para. 13). 33. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that, of the numerous cases of violations of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association reported, comparatively few have been fully investigated, with the perpetrators brought to account. By contrast, the number of arrests and prosecutions for alleged offences committed in the course of the legitimate exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association continues to rise. 34. Legal mechanisms, such as injunctions, civil damages and trespass and defamation suits, are often used to curtail the work of civil society organizations and individuals engaged in defending rights in the context of natural resource exploitation. The increasing use of so-called “strategic litigation against public participation” suits is of concern because of the chilling effect the proceedings may have on the legitimate expression of dissent or opposition, including through peaceful protest. These suits may be brought by corporations against individuals or associations that are critical of natural resource exploitation activities in order to intimidate them or deter them from their work by burdening them with litigation costs and damages they may be unable to pay. The Special Rapporteur emphasizes that an independent judiciary should play a positive role in recognizing and upholding international human rights standards , especially in contexts where human rights defenders and communities are subjected to legal proceedings for exercising their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. 35. The Special Rapporteur has in previous reports highlighted the significant role that effective remedies play in promoting accountability for human rights violations, stating that States have an obligation to establish accessible and effective complaints mechanisms that are able to independently, promptly and thoroughly investigate allegations of human rights violations or abuses in order to hold those responsible accountable (see A/HRC/20/27, paras. 77–81). The lack of adequate compensation for violations related to natural resource exploitation may contribute to increased social tensions, with communities feeling at a loss for obtaining redress by alternative means. In the context of natural resource exploitation, the Special Rapporteur believes that this obligation to provide remedies lies not only with host States but also with States of origin. 36. The obligations of States to ensure the respect of human rights by corporations engaged in natural resource exploitation in their own territory is clear. Less well-developed and understood are the extraterritorial obligations of States arising from the international human rights standards to which they have voluntarily acceded. At a minimum, States of origin should ensure that victims of human rights violations have effective judicial remedies. Doing so also entails a monitoring responsibility to ensure that companies operating abroad adhere to international human rights standards. States from the global North and Brazil, China, India, the Russian Federation and South Africa, where many of the companies engaged in natural resource exploitation around the world are domiciled, have an especially important role to play in this regard. For example, civil society groups in Latin America have in public hearings at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights highlighted the significant role of Canadian companies in human rights violations in the region, and the support provided by the Government of Canada, despite these allegations. 12