A/HRC/22/71 abuse and physical assaults by her common-law husband. Specifically, the State did not afford her sufficient protection from domestic violence at the hands of a private actor. 32 28. Similarly, the Committee against Torture, in its general comment No. 2, clarified that the Convention imposed obligations on States parties, not on individuals. States bore international responsibility for the acts and omissions of their officials and others, including agents, private contractors and other persons acting in an official capacity or on behalf of the State, in conjunction with the State, under its direction or control, or otherwise under colour of law. The Committee added that it had made clear that, where State authorities or others acting in an official capacity or under colour of law knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that acts of torture or ill-treatment were being committed by non-State officials or private actors and they failed to exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish such non-State officials or private actors in accordance with the Convention, the State bore responsibility and its officials should be regarded as authors, complicit or otherwise responsible under the Convention for consenting to or acquiescing in such impermissible acts.33 29. In certain circumstances, non-State actors may also have responsibilities in international human rights law, particularly when they are acting in the place of the State or fulfilling the functions of the State. 34 In his commentary to the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises 35 affirmed that the responsibility to respect human rights is a global standard of expected conduct for all business enterprises, wherever they operate. It exists independently of States’ abilities and/or willingness to fulfil their own human rights obligations, and does not diminish those obligations. Furthermore, it exists over and above compliance with national laws and regulations protecting human rights. 36 The Special Representative added that the responsibility to respect human rights requires that business enterprises: (a) Avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their own activities, and address such impacts when they occur; (b) Seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or services by their business relationships, even if they have not contributed to those impacts. 37 30. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights also refers to individuals’ duties, which go beyond the conventional notion that duties may be correlative to rights. 38 Asian Confucian tradition emphasizes the responsibility of individuals, families and communities in caring for others, which is consistent with the notions of respect and solidarity in the culture of certain indigenous peoples. Similarly, the preambles to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognize that the individual is “under a 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Communication No. 2/2003, views adopted on 26 January 2005. General comment No. 2, paras. 15 and 18. See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31. See Andrew Clapham, Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006), and Philip Alston (ed.), Non-State Actors and Human Rights (New York, Oxford University Press, 2005). Endorsed by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 17/4. See A/HRC/17/31, para. 11. Ibid., para. 13. Philip Alston, Ryan Goodman and Henry J. Steiner (ed.), International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morals (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 505. 9