A/HRC/15/31 C. Accountability and enforcement 56. The capacity to regulate effectively does not only depend on the institution itself, but is embedded in the broader context. Regulation will be undermined in a situation where corruption is rampant or when there is no functioning independent judiciary to enforce the regulatory framework and decisions taken by the regulator. Accountability and access to effective remedies are essential for closing the circle, as service providers and the State can be held accountable for deteriorating services, unmet performance standards, unjustified tariff increases, inadequate social policies or other breaches. 57. To ensure accountability, roles and responsibilities have to be clearly designated and made transparent. Also, the coordination between different entities involved – public and private – has to be ensured. Water and sanitation users must be able to identify who is responsible in order to hold the relevant actor to account. Corruption presents an additional challenge to building responsive and accountable institutions. Fighting it requires, above all, strong political will. Transparency, in particular, will help to reduce the risk of corruption, for instance, by ensuring that bidding is competitive and contracts are made public. Where a State-owned company is formed to deliver water and sanitation services, the legislative process for the establishment of the company should be the product of a participatory and transparent process. In all cases, clearly defined performance targets and disclosure of information help to reduce the risk of corruption. 58. Accountability can be achieved through judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative, political and social mechanisms at the national and international levels. Mechanisms can be based at the level of the service provider or of the State. As stated by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, irrespective of the obligation of the State to establish accountability mechanisms and ensure access to these, service providers have a responsibility to put into place means that allow individuals to bring alleged human rights abuses to their attention (A/HRC/8/5, para. 82). Such mechanisms should be easily accessible to consumers, but also to people within the area of operation who are not considered clients, for instance due to the non-payment of bills. This is part of exercising human rights due diligence, since accountability mechanisms enable the service provider to become aware of its (alleged) human rights impacts. Establishing grievance mechanisms can be seen as a necessary feedback loop complementing the general monitoring of human rights compliance. When abuses have been identified, non-State actors bear a responsibility to remedy those. Evidently, the set-up of these mechanisms will vary depending on the size of the business and other factors. For instance, while a large company might have an entire department dealing with complaints, small providers might be in touch directly with those who rely on their services. According to the Special Representative of the SecretaryGeneral, to be effective and credible, a non-judicial grievance mechanism should be legitimate, accessible, predictable, equitable, compatible with rights and transparent (para. 92). 59. In any case, non-State service providers must not obstruct access to State-based accountability mechanisms, including court proceedings. Such mechanisms are essential, since an appropriate solution might not be found between the individual who has allegedly been harmed and the service provider. Grievance mechanisms provided by service providers are an important first step, but they may not settle the issue conclusively. In contentious cases, settlement via an independent institution such as the judiciary is required. 60. Therefore, it must be possible to address complaints to State institutions. Such mechanisms must be available to all people, not only for “clients” who pay for services provision. For instance, concerned individuals must have the opportunity to bring up 19