A/HRC/8/16 page 9 section discusses at some length the international legal standards for aiding and abetting. It also explores the key non-legal contexts in which indirect involvement in human rights abuses has carried important implications for companies. A. Introducing the concept 29. The concept of complicity is highly relevant to the context of business and human rights. Most of the over 40 Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) cases brought against companies in the United States to date, now the largest body of domestic jurisprudence regarding corporate responsibility for violations of international law, have concerned alleged complicity, where the actual perpetrators were public or private security forces, other government agents, armed factions in civil conflicts, or other such actors.13 Moreover, a recent study conducted by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) for the Special Representative, which maps allegations against companies, documents that 41 per cent of the 320 cases (from all regions and sectors) in the sample alleged indirect forms of company involvement in various human rights abuses.14 30. Complicity in the business and human rights context refers to the indirect involvement of companies in human rights abuses. In essence, complicity means that a company knowingly contributed to another’s abuse of human rights. It is conceived as indirect involvement because the company itself does not actually carry out the abuse. In principle, complicity may be alleged in relation to knowingly contributing to any type of human rights abuse, whether of civil or political rights, or economic, social and cultural rights. 31. Allegations of company complicity typically have concerned involvement in abuses by State or non-State actors. For example, legal uses of the term refer to both indirect involvements in government abuses and those of non-State actors, such as paramilitaries.15 Additionally, shareholder divestment decisions have been made in response to alleged indirect involvement of a company in a supplier’s violations of human rights in the workplace. 32. Understanding the implications of complicity requires an appreciation of how both the law and various social actors might view company contributions to human rights abuse and the possible consequences of those views. This may seem a daunting task. Yet, companies can become aware of, prevent and address risks of complicity by integrating the common features of legal and societal benchmarks into their due diligence processes. Indeed, avoiding complicity is 13 ATCA is discussed further in section B below. 14 See A/HRC/8/5/Add.2. 15 For examples of cases brought against companies for aiding and abetting alleged State abuse, see: Doe v. Unocal, 395 F.3d 932 (9th Cir., 2002) (settled out of court); Khulumani v. Barclay National Bank, 504 F.3d 254 (2d Cir., 2007) (ongoing) and Xiaoning v. Yahoo! Inc. (N.D.Cal., case filed on 18 April 2007) (ongoing). For examples of cases against companies for aiding and abetting non-State abuse, see: Carrizosa v. Chiquita (S.D. Fla., case filed on 13 June 2007) (ongoing); Doe v. Chiquita (D.N.J., case filed on 18 July 2007) (ongoing).