A/HRC/44/45 including the right to life, violence against women, and sex-based discrimination, alongside a series of specific due diligence obligations that pertain to trafficking in persons. 9 A State’s due diligence obligation applies without discrimination to all individuals within its territory or effective control, including citizens and non-citizens, individuals trafficked for sex, labour, organ removal, and other forms of trafficking, and regardless of whether the State is one of origin, transit and/or destination. 10 16. In addition to States’ obligations with regard to individual non-State perpetrators, their due diligence obligations to prevent, investigate, and punish trafficking also require measures with respect to corporations, which exist alongside any measures these corporations themselves may adopt as part of their obligation to adopt a human rights due diligence process as set forth in the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.11 In the context of anti-trafficking measures, both the territorial and extraterritorial application of human rights means that States’ due diligence obligations apply extraterritorially to those within their jurisdiction, including domestic non-State actors (e.g., corporations).12 17. Due diligence is an obligation requiring States to take reasonable measures that have a real prospect of altering the outcome or mitigating the harm. 13 Consistent with international human rights obligations – including the obligation of substantive equality – such measures should be targeted not only towards identified victims but also towards those most at risk of trafficking in persons.14 In the context of States’ approaches to trafficking, due diligence has primarily been post hoc. However, due diligence also requires a focus on prevention, meaning that States have a systemic 15 responsibility to address root causes. 16 Under international law, the failure to exercise due diligence is consequential, meaning that States that have failed to exercise due diligence towards private actors incur international responsibility that then requires them to provide an effective remedy for victims of trafficking in persons,17 which is essential for their social inclusion. In providing specialized assistance to individual victims, 18 individual due diligence requires that States must act flexibly to ensure that measures are tailored to individual circumstances. 19 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 See generally A/70/260. Ibid., para. 7. See A/HRC/17/31, annex. See, e.g., principles 15 (b) and 17–21. A/HRC/70/260, para. 16. On extraterritoriality, see, e.g., Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation on States parties to the Covenant, para. 10; Committee against Torture, general comment No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2, paras. 7 and 16; Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, general recommendation No. 28 (2010) on the core obligations of States parties under article 2 of the Convention, para. 12, and general recommendation No. 30 (2013) on women in conflict prevention, conflict and post-conflict situations, paras. 8–12 and 15; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 168, at para. 216. A/HRC/23/49, para. 72. See, e.g., Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) et al. v. United States, Merits, 21 July 2011, Case 12.626, Report No. 80/11, para. 127. A/HRC/23/49, para. 70, in which the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences states that: there is a need to create a framework for discussing the responsibility of States to act with due diligence, by separating the due diligence standard into two categories: individual due diligence and systemic due diligence. Ibid., para. 20. A/70/260, para. 7. See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31, para. 8; Committee against Torture, general comment No. 2, para. 18, and general comment No. 3 (2012) on the implementation of article 14, para. 7. See E/CN.4/2006/61. A/HRC/23/49, para. 70, in which the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences states that individual due diligence requires flexibility, as procedures taken in these instances must reflect the needs and preferences of the individuals harmed. 5