A/HRC/5/5 page 19 enforcement of judgements awarding compensation can prove to be difficult, especially when the corporation does not have assets in the State of jurisdiction. In addition, in the particular context of armed conflicts, it is hard to imagine bringing a civil action against a company before the courts of the State in which the violation of human rights took place since, in the majority of cases, either the judicial system is virtually non-existent or the Government is an accomplice in the alleged violations. The Special Rapporteur therefore recommends that victims of human rights violations arising from actions or omissions by transnational corporations be allowed to seek redress in the jurisdiction of the domicile of the corporation, and that Governments ensure that corporations domiciled in their countries be held accountable for human rights violations. 44. The Special Rapporteur recognizes that there is an intense ongoing debate as to the extent of the direct responsibilities of private companies under international human rights law, and, therefore, welcomes the work of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. The Special Rapporteur will continue to study with great interest his findings and recommendations. 45. In the particular context of armed conflict, armed groups are more likely than private companies to have an adverse impact on the enjoyment of human rights. Indeed, as parties to an armed conflict, armed opposition groups take part in hostilities and are thus likely to have an impact, voluntary or not, on the enjoyment of human rights by the population affected by the conflict. In many non-international armed conflicts, armed opposition groups will face better equipped and more powerful governmental forces. This imbalance may encourage armed groups to resort to non-conventional means of combat, using whatever potential weapons they might find in their area of operations, including toxic products. Furthermore, in some contexts armed opposition groups exercise a State-like control over part of the territory of the State, maintaining law and order, providing social services and even in some cases establishing a justice system. In those cases where an armed opposition group exercises a role which is analogous to that of the State and is thereby preventing the legitimate exercise of power by the State, the group should have responsibilities similar to those of the State, notably in protecting the enjoyment of human rights by those present on the territory it controls. In other cases, where armed opposition groups do not exercise State-like control over part of the territory, they still retain an important ability to adversely affect human rights. 46. Although the obligations of armed opposition groups under international human rights law are the object of important academic debates, the Special Rapporteur believes that because of their significant impact on the enjoyment of human rights, armed opposition groups should be considered as duty bearers, and should uphold basic human rights standards. III. LEGAL FRAMEWORK RELATED TO THE RELEASE OF TOXIC AND DANGEROUS PRODUCTS DURING ARMED CONFLICT A. International humanitarian law 47. In the particular context of armed conflict, the conduct of the parties is governed first and foremost by international humanitarian law. International humanitarian law and human rights law have the same ultimate goal: the protection of the individual. In some respects, both bodies have similar norms, notably in the area of fundamental guarantees. However some issues are exclusively governed by international humanitarian law, namely the conduct of hostilities.