A/HRC/11/13 page 21 V. ACCESS TO REMEDY 86. Access to effective remedy, the framework’s third pillar, is an important component of both the State duty to protect and of the corporate responsibility to respect. This section is divided into four parts. The first seeks to clarify ambiguities concerning States’ obligations in this area. The second addresses the relationship between judicial and non-judicial mechanisms. The third and fourth parts describe the Special Representative’s current work and thinking on judicial and non-judicial mechanisms. A. State obligations 87. As part of their duty to protect, States are required to take appropriate steps to investigate, punish and redress corporate-related abuse of the rights of individuals within their territory and/or jurisdiction - in short, to provide access to remedy. Without such steps, the duty could be rendered weak or even meaningless. Remedy may be provided through judicial, administrative, legislative or other appropriate means. States may also be required to provide adequate reparation, including compensation, to victims.50 88. This State obligation to provide access to remedy is distinct from the individual right to remedy recognized in a number of international and regional human rights conventions. While the State obligation applies to corporate abuse of all applicable human rights, it is unclear how far the individual right to remedy extends to non-State abuses. However, an individual right to remedy has been affirmed for the category of acts covered by the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law (General Assembly resolution 60/147, annex), “irrespective of who may ultimately be the bearer of responsibility for the violation”.51 89. Some international and regional human rights bodies have addressed what States are expected to do in providing access to remedy for corporate-related abuse. For example, they have emphasized establishing effective complaints mechanisms for employment-related grievances; minimizing the potential for extractive companies to impair the ability of communities affected by their operations, especially indigenous peoples, to access remedial mechanisms; and ensuring that effective remedial processes exist for abuses by private companies carrying out “State functions”. However, guidance continues to vary as to: whether States are expected to punish corporate entities directly, apart from individuals acting on their behalf; when States are expected to provide individuals with civil causes of action regarding corporate-related abuse; and whether and to what extent States should hold corporations accountable for alleged rights abuses overseas. 90. These complex issues are further elaborated in the addendum to this report. 50 Several core international and regional human rights treaties provide for these elements; where they do not, there has been some useful commentary from human rights bodies. 51 Principle 3 (c).