A/HRC/25/53 57. Again, special rapporteurs have taken equivalent positions with respect to rights within the scope of their mandates.55 For example, the Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation has emphasized that “successful regulation depends not only on standard-setting, but also on strong independent regulators… Regulators need to have the capacity, in terms of human resources, skills, funding and independence from interference, to monitor whether regulations are being complied with, carry out on-site inspections, and impose fines and penalties in the case of breaches” (A/68/264, para. 52). 2. Obligations to protect against environmental harm from private actors 58. As the then Special Representative of the Secretary-General on business and human rights explained, “the State duty to protect against non-State abuses is part of the very foundation of the international human rights regime. The duty requires States to play a key role in regulating and adjudicating abuse by business enterprises, or risk breaching their international obligations” (A/HRC/4/35, para. 18). Such abuses can include environmental harm that infringes human rights. The Special Representative reviewed 320 cases of alleged corporate-related human rights abuses and found that nearly one third of the cases alleged environmental harm that affected human rights, including the rights to life, health, food and housing. Most of the cases of direct harm to communities involved environmental impacts (A/HRC/8/5/Add.2, para. 67). 59. The Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights endorsed by the Human Rights Council in 2011 state that States are required, inter alia, to “protect against human rights abuse within their territory and/or jurisdiction by third parties, including business enterprises,” including by “taking appropriate steps to prevent, investigate, punish and redress such abuse through effective policies, legislation, regulations and adjudication” (A/HRC/17/31, principle 1). The Guiding Principles also make it clear that States have an obligation to provide for remedies for human rights abuses caused by corporations, and that corporations themselves have a responsibility to respect human rights. These three pillars of the normative framework all apply to environmental human rights abuses such as those described in the earlier report of the Special Representative. 60. Many other human rights bodies have explicitly connected States’ duty to protect against human rights abuses by non-State actors to such abuses caused by pollution or other environmental harm. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has stated that “corporate activities can adversely affect the enjoyment of Covenant rights”, including through harmful impacts on the natural environment, and reiterated the “obligation of States Parties to ensure that all economic, social and cultural rights laid down in the Covenant are fully respected and rights holders adequately protected in the context of corporate activities” (E/C.12/2011/1, para. 1). In the context of the right to water, the Committee has made it clear that the duty to protect extends to adopting and enforcing effective measures to restrain third parties from infringing the right through pollution of water sources (general comment No. 15 (2002), paras. 23 and 44(b)).56 61. The African Commission has stated that “Governments have a duty to protect their citizens, not only through appropriate legislation and effective enforcement but also by protecting them from damaging acts that may be perpetrated by private parties”, and has held that by allowing oil companies “to devastatingly affect the well-being of the Ogonis”, 55 56 16 Report on special procedures, sect. III.B (citing statements relating to rights to health, water, food and housing). For other statements by the Committee, see ICESCR report, sect. IV.B. For statements by the special procedures, see Report on special procedures, sect. IV.