A/HRC/30/49 implementing human rights. Government officials who are accountable to voters are more likely to respond to citizens’ demands than those who are not.2 14. To ensure effective local governance and adequate implementation of human rights at the local level, it is important to have a proper legal framework for local government. The organization, powers and functions should be clearly prescribed by law. Further, national legislation should delineate clearly the responsibilities and powers of central and local government authorities in relation to one another. 15. Local government should preferably be recognized in the national constitution; indeed, in a number of countries, the constitutions specifically protect local government autonomy. It should be underlined that constitutional protection provides the greatest guarantee of stability. A specific law on local government passed by a national parliament is the next best solution in this regard. In a few countries, legal safeguards are in place to maintain the stability of laws governing local government. In Hungary, for example, the Law on Local Authorities can be adopted or amended only by a two-thirds majority of the parliamentarians present. The same applies to any legislation restricting the rights associated with local self-government. 16. It is noteworthy that the principles of subsidiarity, decentralization and accountability are explicitly envisaged in a number of countries as main principles of local government. Furthermore, the respective laws provide for the right of local authorities to have recourse to a judicial remedy in order to ensure respect for such principles. III. States and local governments: Shared and complementary duties to respect, protect and fulfil human rights 17. As a matter of international law, the State is one single entity, regardless of its unitary or federal nature and internal administrative division. In this regard, only the State as a whole is bound by obligations stemming from international treaties to which it is a party. Thus, by becoming a party to an international human rights treaty, a State assumes obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights. More specifically, only States are obliged to submit reports as required by the respective universal and regional human rights treaties, and only States can be the subject of individual or inter-State complaints under such treaties. Furthermore, a State appearing before an international human rights complaints mechanism cannot defend itself by claiming that the alleged violation was committed by a local authority. 18. It should also be emphasized that under general international law a State, as represented by the central government, is responsible for all acts of all its organs and agents.3 In addition, when it comes to State responsibility, despite its internal organization, in accordance with customary international law, there are several principles that apply. Firstly, the structure of the State, the functions of State organs and even the mere definition of what constitutes a State organ are not, in general, governed by international law. It is within State sovereign competence to decide how its own administration is to be structured 2 3 International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, “Democratic Accountability and Service Delivery: A Desk Review”, January 2013, available from http://www.idea.int/resources/analysis/democratic-accountability-and-service-delivery-a-deskreview.cfm . In this respect, a reference could be made, mutatis mutandis, to art. 50 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Parties, according to which the provisions of the Covenant “shall extend to all parts of federal States without any limitations or exceptions”. 5