A/HRC/23/49 20. The previous mandate holder also highlighted the lack of State accountability for social structural deficiencies, such as ongoing gender discrimination, that create environments that are conducive to acts of violence against women. This theme was addressed in more detail by the current mandate holder in the 2011 report on multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination that contribute to and exacerbate violence against women (A/HRC/17/26). In that report the Special Rapporteur argues that while laws, policies and resources are crucial to address effectively violence against women and girls, efforts must be coupled with renewed will and actions to combat the structural and systemic challenges which are a cause and consequence of such violence. Also, in order to prevent and eliminate violence against women and girls, such violence has to be understood as an element which affects women through their life cycle and is underpinned by a complex interplay of individual, family, community, economic and social factors. This requires recognizing that State responsibility to act with due diligence is both a systemic-level responsibility, i.e. the responsibility of States to create good and effective systems and structures that address the root causes and consequences of violence against women; and also an individual-level responsibility, i.e., the responsibility of States to provide each victim with effective measures of prevention, protection, punishment and reparation. 21. In his 2006 study (A/61/122/Add.1 and Corr.1), the Secretary-General recalled that violence against women is a form of discrimination and a violation of human rights. He endorsed the principle of State responsibility to act with due diligence in the context of violence against women. In addition, resolutions on violence against women emanating from the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly have called upon States to exercise due diligence to prevent and investigate acts of violence against women and girls and punish the perpetrators.15 These resolutions broadly call upon the State to put in place civil and criminal measures to address offender accountability, to ensure victim safety and, importantly, to provide redress and justice measures that victims can access effectively. States are also urged to adopt laws, policies and programmes that recognize the consequences of multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination which lead to increased vulnerability for some categories of women. 22. One specific area in which the due diligence principle has been developed and applied to human rights violations is in the area of transnational corporations. In 2008, the Special Representative of the Secretary General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises issued a report entitled “Protect, Respect and Remedy: a Framework for Business and Human Rights” (A/HRC/8/5). This Framework is focused on States’ “duty to protect” and transnational corporations’ “responsibility to respect”. The duty to protect is a standard of conduct, not result, meaning that States are expected to take appropriate steps to prevent, investigate, punish and redress abuse by private actors (A/64/216, para. 7). In 2011, the Special Representative presented to the Human Rights Council the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (A/HRC/17/31, annex), which articulate foundational principles that clarify and expand on what is entailed by the State duty to protect and the corporate responsibility to respect. These Guiding Principles were endorsed by the Council in its resolution 17/4, and a Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises was established to, inter alia, promote their effective and comprehensive dissemination and implementation. There are four elements to human rights due diligence concerning transnational corporations: (a) identification and assessment of actual or potential adverse human rights impacts; (b) appropriate actions being taken based on information from the assessment; (c) tracking the effectiveness of the response; and (d) effective communication with relevant stakeholders concerning the response. These four 15 See General Assembly resolutions 64/137 and 65/187, and Human Rights Council resolution 14/12. 7