25. A number of Member States, civil society organizations and other entities have repeatedly voiced strong opposition, both publicly and privately, against Council resolution 31/36 mandating the High Commissioner to produce a database. Other Member States have expressed support, along with Israeli, Palestinian and international civil society, academics and think tanks. This includes a petition signed by over 400 members of Israeli civil society, including a former attorney general and former members of the Knesset, retired diplomats, and other prominent individuals; 7 a joint statement by 56 non-governmental organizations;8 and a letter signed by almost 60 Member States addressed to the High Commissioner.9 (e) Next steps 26. More resources are required for OHCHR to continue its dialogue with and issue communications to relevant business enterprises, adding information to the database and updating existing information in the database as required by resolution 31/36. Once OHCHR has been in contact with all 206 companies, and subject to determinations of their responses and non-responses, OHCHR expects to provide the names of the companies engaged in listed activities in a future update. Before the determinations on the companies are made public, OHCHR will notify the companies concerned. II. Normative framework A. The obligations of Israel as the occupying Power 27. As stated above, the creation of the database is not a judicial process. In this respect, the work of OHCHR is guided by Council resolution 31/36, in which paragraph 17 sets out the tasks given to OHCHR. The preamble to resolution 31/36 reflects the normative framework with regard to Israel as the occupying Power.10 28. Since the adoption by the Human Rights Council of resolution 31/36, the Security Council, on 23 December 2016, in its resolution 2334 (2016), reaffirmed its position that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, had no legal validity, and constituted a flagrant violation under international law. As recognized in numerous reports of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General, continued expansion of settlements not only undermines the possibility of a two-State solution, but is also at the core of many human rights violations in the West Bank (see for example A/HRC/28/80, A/HRC/31/42, A/HRC/31/43 and A/HRC/34/39). Human rights situation 29. The extensive human rights impact of settlements on the human rights of Palestinians has been well documented in successive reports of the High Commissioner, the 7 8 9 10 8 See “Hundreds of Israelis urge publication of UN settlement database”, Middle East Monitor, 4 December 2017. “Joint NGO Statement in Support of the UN Human Rights Database on Business Activities related to Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”, Worldwide Movement for Human Rights, 30 November 2017. On file with OHCHR. In the preamble to resolution 31/36, the Human Rights Council recalls, inter alia, relevant reports of the Secretary-General, OHCHR and the fact-finding mission; relevant resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights, the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council and the Security Council reaffirming, inter alia, the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, including in East Jerusalem; the advisory opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice, which concluded that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, had been established in breach of international law; the treaty bodies monitoring compliance with the human rights treaties to which Israel is a party; relevant provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention and customary law; and the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.