A/HRC/43/51/Add.2 3. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex rights defenders 54. In late 2015, the Government of Mongolia passed a landmark amendment to the Criminal Code, which made discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity a crime. However, social attitudes and prejudices and stigmatization are still prevalent against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons and those defending their rights. The Special Rapporteur believes that greater efforts are needed to ensure that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons and organizations access effective redress when they are subject to attacks, threats and other violations or abuses. 55. The Special Rapporteur concurs with the analysis made by officials he met during the visit that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons and organizations are at times the victims of subjective interpretation of the assembly law, and he believes more should be done to ensure that they can effectively exercise their rights to freedom of peaceful assembly, association and expression. 4. Land, environmental, housing rights and anti-corruption defenders 56. In a country where about 40 per cent of the workforce is nomadic, with livestock herding in extensive pasturelands, and over 30 per cent of the population lives in the capital, the role played by environmental and housing rights defenders is fundamental. By promoting sustainable development and livelihood preservation, as well as by encouraging the business sector to accept its responsibility to respect human rights, their role is crucial in promoting transparency and accountability and exposing discrimination and corruption. However, when reporting on air pollution, water contamination and rapid urbanization, defenders face obstacles and risks, including threats, smear campaigns and intimidation. In Ulaanbaatar, the Special Rapporteur was appalled to hear about the threats faced by a human rights defender after he opposed the selling by a private company of plastic bags that had previously been used to transport hazardous waste. 57. The Special Rapporteur notes that some companies seem to make an effort to involve local communities in their development projects, yet he deplores that others seem to have been more reluctant to do so. In Ulaanbaatar, the Special Rapporteur heard various testimonies from individuals who had been penalized under article 6.21 of the law on administrative offences after they had opposed urban redevelopment projects. The Special Rapporteur is alarmed about the apparent misuse of this legislation. He is also seriously concerned at the situation of some residents who seem to have been deceived by private companies. Reportedly, in a number of cases, an agreement on environment protection and relocation compensation that inhabitants signed with the companies was used to complete their eviction. The Special Rapporteur emphasizes that the redevelopment plan in Ulaanbaatar should be an opportunity for genuine consultation with civil society and the affected persons, who should be provided with all feasible alternatives prior to any eviction. 58. In Airag, inhabitants and herders who had been living in the area for generations complained about exposure to contaminated dust, which was allegedly caused by a fluor mining site operated by the Chinese company Yantai Uul. While the site has been sealed by the authorities, reports received indicate that some children from the area suffer from skin irritation and respiratory diseases that may be the result of an ineffective rehabilitation of the mining site. 59. In the same area, the Special Rapporteur received complaints from two family herders living a few hundred metres away from a fluor mining site owned by the company Dompaloma MCTT. The families reportedly spoke about their respiratory problems in a television programme and were subsequently subjected to threats and acts of harassment from the company. The families were accused of fabricating accusations for money through the posting of derogatory comments by the company on social media, which, in such a small remote village, had serious adverse consequences for the individuals affected. Reportedly, the National Human Rights Commission of Mongolia suggested that the families be resettled at the expense of the company. One family reportedly declined the offer until they received a decent compensation from the company for the damage caused. 13