A/HRC/29/30 associations, institutions or organizations without prior approval by the Minister of Education. Finally, the regulations provide for sanctions in case of non-conformity to the rules by private educational establishments. 60 84. In Japan, the School Education Act fixes minimum standards in education with curriculum guidelines, and the ordinance for the enforcement of the Act provides a basis for application of the guidelines. The country’s Private Schools Act61 lays down requirements for the establishment and management of private schools. Failure to follow specific regulations is punishable by sanctions of a civil nature. 85. Singapore is an especially noteworthy example of how States can effectively regulate private education providers with sanctions in cases of abusive practices. According to the country’s Private Education Act, private educational establishments must be registered and abide by very strict quality standards and norms. They can be refused permission to operate if the private education institution is not in the public interest. The Act establishes duties and management accountabilities. It provides that “any registered private education institution which contravenes any requirement or restriction imposed … shall be guilty of an offence” and makes acting “fraudulently or dishonestly” or “misleading” the public punishable by law.62 The Act contains comprehensive provisions on inspection, enforcement and offences, as well as a detailed section on offences by corporate bodies, including unincorporated associations that, when found guilty of an offence, shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished accordingly.63 IX. Justiciability of the operations of private education providers 86. International and regional human rights monitoring mechanisms have noted that States have an obligation to protect individuals from human rights abuses committed by private parties. Public accountability of privatized schools and availability of remedies and recourse from their decisions should be specifically and unambiguously provided for by law. The regulatory role of the State is clearly within the scope of the obligation to protect.64 Existing jurisprudence enables a better understanding of the obligations that the right to education imposes upon private providers. 87. A number of court rulings worldwide have established that private providers in education are accountable to the State and to the public. The Supreme Court of Nepal found that fees charged by private providers of education were increasing social and economic disparity. It ruled that the educational authorities had to devise reform programmes to regulate private schools: regulating fees, prohibiting the sale of unregistered and overpriced textbooks and limiting the number of private schools being accredited.65 88. In another case, the South African Constitutional Court found that the primary positive obligation with respect to the right to education rests on the State and that private 60 61 62 63 64 65 16 Ordinance No. 05-07 of 23 August 2005. Available from www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail/?id=2301&vm=04&re=01. Private Education Act No. 21 (2009) of Singapore. Ibid. See Coomans and de Wolf, “Privatisation”, p. 255. See Open Equal Free, “Nepali Private Schools banned from raising fees. Available from www.openequalfree.org/archives/ed-news/nepali-private-schools-banned-from-raising-fees.