A/HRC/37/30 require States to (a) assess environmental impacts and make environmental information public; (b) facilitate the meaningful participation of rights holders in environmental decision-making; and (c) provide access to remedies where those rights are violated. Substantive obligations, which may vary from one right to another, generally require States to adopt legal and institutional frameworks that protect against environmental harm that interferes with the enjoyment of human rights, including harm caused by private actors. Additionally, in accordance with the human rights principle of equality and nondiscrimination, States may have additional obligations to populations that are particularly vulnerable to environmental harm. 33. Under international human rights treaties, States are clearly obligated to mitigate the risks of hazards and disasters, including those arising from the impacts of climate change. Those obligations also extend to protection against negative impacts on human rights from activities of non-State actors. Principle 1 of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights stipulates that States must protect against human rights abuse within their territory and/or jurisdiction by third parties, including business enterprises. That requires taking appropriate steps to prevent, investigate, punish and redress such abuse through effective policies, legislation, regulations and adjudication (see A/HRC/17/31, annex). 34. In its general comment No. 24 (2017) on State obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the context of business activities, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights indicated that: “States parties should also consider the use of administrative sanctions to discourage conduct by business entities that leads, or may lead, to violations of the rights under the Covenant. For instance, in their public procurement regimes, States could deny the awarding of public contracts to companies that have not provided information on the social or environmental impacts of their activities or that have not put in place measures to ensure that they act with due diligence to avoid or mitigate any negative impacts on the rights under the Covenant.” 35. In recent years, the jurisprudence of regional human rights mechanisms has also helped to clarify the obligations of States with regard to prevention and mitigation, as well as remedies. An illustrative example can be found from the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Budayeva and others v. Russia, in which it considered whether and when deaths caused by a man-made or natural disaster can amount to a human rights violation by the State. 36. In July 2000, a mudslide triggered by the Gerhozhansu river swept through Tyrnauz, a town in the Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria in the north Caucasus, Russian Federation, killing eight people and destroying many buildings. The mud retention dams protecting Tyrnauz had been damaged by heavy mudslides in the previous year, but had never been repaired, as the State meteorological institute had advised. Shortly before the incident took place, the institute had warned the local Ministry for Disaster Relief about the imminent danger, given the recent heavy rainfall, and had requested the local authorities to take the necessary measures and to prepare to issue an emergency warning if necessary. The authorities failed to act on those recommendations. The day before the disaster, when a smaller mudflow hit the town and flooded some residential areas, the local authorities ordered the evacuation of the affected parts of the town. However, they did not prevent evacuees from returning to their homes on the following day when the mud level had subsided. 37. Claims for compensation made by the relatives of the victims were rejected by domestic courts on the ground that the victims died of natural causes that could not have been foreseen or prevented by the State. The appeal was then brought to the European Court of Human Rights, which found that the State was in violation of its duty to protect life, since it had not acted on the requests for the clear, preventive measures necessary to protect its population. 38. The ruling by the European Court recognized the State obligation to protect life against the consequences of disasters by reaffirming that the right to life “does not solely concern deaths resulting from the use of force by agents of the State but also … lays down a positive obligation on States to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those 8