In relation to the overall situation, subject to the law under which the NHRI of Country B is established and operates, Country B’s NHRI could • Undertake an inquiry into whether Country B is aiding or assisting in any way any activities of Country A found by the International Court of Justice to be unlawful under international law • Recommend to the government and parliament of Country B any action that should be taken to ensure Country B’s compliance with its obligations under international law in relation to Country A, including by prohibiting any action that aids and assists Country A’s unlawful activities • Offer support to Country A’s NHRI in its efforts to promote and protect human rights in the situation more effectively • Join other NHRIs in their global and regional associations to bring the situation in Country A to the attention of the UN and other international forums, including recommending action that should be taken by the UN or other multilateral bodes and by individual States, to end Country A’s unlawful activity • Make media statements, either individually or with other NHRIs in their global and regional associations, about the situation and the obligations under international law arising from it. Scenario 2: International mining operations A mining corporation established in Country A has a mining lease in Country B. The mining operation requires an open cut mine, with an enormous pit. It also requires infrastructure around the pit – ore processors, storage areas, offices, barracks for workers, communications systems, a dam for water, roads and slag heaps of unwanted extracted material. The mine and the associated works have displaced several thousand indigenous people living in villages located around the area of the mine. The mining operation is being undertaken under a memorandum of understanding between the governments of Country A and Country B. The memorandum of understanding was negotiated by Country A’s diplomats in Country B and it was signed by the representatives of both States in Country A’s embassy. The arrangement is very much in Country A’s interests and so Country A is subsidising the mining company to ensure the company’s continuing commitment to the mine. Country B’s representatives demanded a payment to secure approval for the arrangement. The payment was made to the representatives in cash in Country A’s embassy immediately before the signing of the memorandum of understanding. The mine has been operating for many years and the damage to the people and the land has become obvious. It is far more serious than the people were told before it began. The noxious dust and gases from the operations have destroyed land far beyond the perimeter and have had severe consequences for the health of the people. There have been very high rates of cancer, lung disease, miscarriage and still birth. It appears that life expectancy has declined but there is not yet adequate research to establish this definitely. People’s living standards, including housing, food, education and employment, have all declined. The slag heap is increasing in height and volume and people are now frightened that it will collapse in one of the heavy rainstorms that occur frequently in the area. They have tried to get the company and the government of Country B to remove the slag but both say the slag heap is perfectly safe and neither is willing to remove it. Non-government organisations representing the affected local people have been advocating for action to promote and protect the rights of the people. They have identified violations of several international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and of 44 National action on international issues