A/HRC/4/35 page 12 are unlikely to create liability. But deriving indirect economic benefit from the wrongful conduct of others may do so, depending on such facts as the closeness of the company’s association with those actors. Greater clarity currently does not exist. However, it is established that even where a corporation does not intend for the crime to occur, and regrets its commission, it will not be absolved of liability if it knew, or should have known, that it was providing assistance, and that the assistance would contribute to the commission of a crime. III. CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OTHER HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW 33. The emerging corporate responsibility for international crimes is grounded in growing national acceptance of international standards for individual responsibility. Although it continues to evolve, there is observable evidence of its existence. In contrast, what if any legal responsibilities corporations may have for other human rights violations under international law is subject to far greater existential debate.30 34. At national levels, there is enormous diversity in the scope and content of corporate legal responsibilities regarding human rights.31 A systematic mapping would require a comprehensive country-by-country study not only of the direct applicability of international law, but also of a range of relevant national measures: constitutional protections of human rights, legislative provisions, administrative mechanisms, and case law. However, preliminary research has not identified the emergence of uniform and consistent State practice establishing corporate responsibilities under customary international law.32 35. The traditional view of international human rights instruments is that they impose only indirect responsibilities on corporations, i.e. responsibilities provided under domestic law in accordance with States’ international obligations. In contrast, some observers hold that these instruments already impose direct legal responsibilities on corporations but merely lack direct accountability mechanisms. For example, the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, explaining that its proposed norms reflect and restate existing international law, attributed the entire spectrum of State duties under the treaties - to respect, protect, promote, and fulfil rights - to corporations within their spheres of influence. 36. This section looks for evidence of direct corporate legal responsibilities under the international sources featured in this debate: the International Bill of Human Rights - the 30 This section responds to paragraph 1 (a) of resolution 2005/69. 31 For a study of seven jurisdictions conducted for the Special Representative, see Allens Arthur Robinson, Brief on Corporations and Human Rights in the Asia Pacific Region (August 2006), http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Legal-brief-on-Asia-Pacific-for-Ruggie-Aug-2006.pdf. 32 For one recent study, see Jennifer A. Zerk, Multinationals and Corporate Social Responsibility (Cambridge University Press, 2006); also see State survey in A/HRC/4/35/Add.3.