A/HRC/4/35 page 14 40. Where the treaty bodies discuss corporate responsibilities, it is unclear whether they regard them as legal in nature. The most recent general comment of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) on the right to work, for example, recognizes that various private actors “have responsibilities regarding the realization of the right to work”, that private enterprises - national and multinational - “have a particular role to play in job creation, hiring policies and non-discriminatory access to work”.36 But then, in the same comment, the Committee appears to reiterate the traditional view that such enterprises are “not bound” by the Covenant. Similarly, the most recent general comment of the Human Rights Committee (HRC) concludes that the treaty obligations “do not … have direct horizontal effect as a matter of international law” - that is, they take effect as between non-State actors only under domestic law.37 41. In short, the treaties do not address direct corporate legal responsibilities explicitly, while the commentaries of the treaty bodies on the subject are ambiguous. However, the increased attention the Committees are devoting to the need to prevent corporate abuse acknowledges that businesses are capable of both breaching human rights and contributing to their protection.38 42. On purely logical grounds, a stronger argument could be made for direct corporate responsibilities under the ILO core conventions: their subject matter addresses all types of employers, including corporations; corporations generally acknowledge greater responsibility for their employees than for other stakeholders; and the ILO’s supervisory mechanism and complaints procedure specify roles for employer organizations and trade unions. But logic alone does not make law, and the legal responsibilities of corporations under the ILO conventions remain indirect. 43. At the regional level there is greater diversity. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights is unusual because it imposes direct duties on individuals, but opinions vary on their effect and whether they apply to groups, including corporations. Expert commentary suggests that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights may have moved away from the traditional view when it recognized that non-discrimination “gives rise to effects with regard to third parties”, including in private employment relationships, “under which the employer must respect the human rights of his workers”.39 The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 36 CESCR, general comment No. 18, para. 52. For similar remarks see CESCR, general comments No. 14, para. 42 and 12, para. 20. See also CRC, general comment No. 5, para. 56, which says that the State duty to respect “extends in practice” to non-State organizations. 37 HRC, general comment No. 31, para. 8. 38 Additionally, Security Council panels that assess the effectiveness of sanctions have specifically considered the role of corporations in violations. 39 Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants, Advisory Opinion OC-18, 17 September 2003, paras. 100 and 146, http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_18_ing.doc.