A/HRC/23/21 54. The Special Rapporteur received somewhat positive responses from Assa Abloy, Dexia, G4S and Cemex. Assa Abloy clarified that its Mul-T-Locks factory was moved from Barkan, Palestine, to Yavne, Israel, in 2011. The Dexia response clarified that the relevant entity was Dexia Israel Limited and that, as a non-retail bank, did not provide credit to private individuals. It also confirmed that Dexia Israel Limited has a role in servicing loans from the Government of Israel to settlements. G4S confirmed its intention to exit its contracts with the customers in question and further confirmed that such contracts expired from 2012 to 2015. It also provided an overview of its progress in putting its human rights policies and practices in place, which it expected to do in 2013. Cemex confirmed that it understood that Israel is the occupying Power in Palestine, and clarified that its plants in Mishor Adumim, Mevoh Horon and Atarot produce exclusively concrete, not other construction materials. Cemex asserted that the Yatir quarry is not an Israeli settlement, but referred in this connection to a decision of the Israeli High Court of Justice that characterized the matter as a political rather than a legal issue. While Cemex also referred to the occupying Power’s duty, under article 55 of the Hague Convention of 1907, to safeguard the capital of the State occupied, the Special Rapporteur recalls that the profits from the quarry go to Cemex, which holds 50 per cent ownership, and Kfar Giladi Quarries. Still, the Special Rapporteur was encouraged to be informed that Cemex, in response to his report, was “considering the possibility of executing a new internal audit on the Cemex Israel [sic] concrete plants” in order to check compliance with the principles of the Global Compact Group.” 55. International attention is increasingly drawn to the activities of Israeli and international business enterprises involved in profit-making in occupied Palestine. The factfinding mission mandated by the Human Rights Council to investigate Israeli settlements denoted a range of potential violations that stem from such activities.The fact-finding mission concluded that private entities had enabled, facilitated and profited from the construction and growth of the settlements, either directly or indirectly,40 and recommended that private companies assess the human rights impact of their activities, and take all necessary steps, including by terminating their business interests in the settlements, to ensure they did not have an adverse impact on the human rights of the Palestinian people. It also recommended that the Working Group on Business and Human Rights be seized of the matter.41 56. The case for action against businesses profiting from the Israeli occupation has been strengthened by recent reports from a wide range of actors. A report compiled by 22 major international human rights and humanitarian organizations made explicit links between the settlements, businesses and Israel’s critical trade with Europe. 42 A leading Palestinian human rights organization, Al-Haq, reported on the responsibility of States members of the European Union for the huge settlement produce industry. 43 Palestinian farming and civil society organizations collectively reported on the extent to which international trade with Israeli agricultural companies is destroying Palestinian agriculture. 44 A confidential report 40 41 42 43 44 20 A/HRC/22/63, para. 110. Ibid., para. 117. Trading Away Peace: How Europe helps sustain illegal Israeli settlements, October 2012. Available from www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/trading.pdf. Feasting on the Occupation: Illegality of Settlement Produce and the Responsibility of EU Member States under International Law, Al-Haq, 2013. Available from www.alhaq.org/publications/Feastingon-the-occupation.pdf. Farming Injustice: International trade with Israeli agricultural companies and the destruction of Palestinian farming, February 2013. Available from www.bdsmovement.net/files/2013/02/FarmingInjustice-Briefing-Feb2013-web.pdf.