Amicus Brief – Human Rights and Climate Change After examining international developments in the area of business and human rights, and specifically the UN Guiding Principles,144 as well as relevant provisions of the UDHR and the ICESCR,145 the Tribunal concluded: At this juncture, it is therefore to be admitted that the human right for everyone’s dignity and its right for adequate housing and living conditions are complemented by an obligation on all parts, public and private parties, not to engage in activity aimed at destroying such rights.146 49. Other international courts have relied on the UN Guiding Principles to establish that businesses ‘must respect and protect human rights, as well as prevent, mitigate, and accept responsibility for the adverse human rights impacts directly linked to their activities’.147 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights reached this conclusion in a case involving mining activities that resulted ‘in the adverse impact on the environment and, consequently, on the rights of the indigenous peoples’.148 The Special Tribunal for Lebanon has found support in the Guiding Principles for the individual’s right to access remedy in case of corporate violations. It held that the UN Guiding Principles and their endorsement by the HRC represent a concrete movement on an international level backed by the United Nations for, inter alia, corporate accountability. Although we are wary that such instruments are non-binding, in light of the fact that corporations have been considered subjects of international law [citing the Barcelona Traction case] the possibility of proceeding against a corporation through criminal prosecution cannot discarded but rather criminal regimes are regarded as an available remedy. The Appeals Panel considers these factors to be evidence of an emerging international consensus regarding what is expected in business activity, where legal persons feature predominantly, in relation to the respect for human rights.149 These illustrations from international case law provide solid grounding for the petitioners’ argument that the Commission can rely upon the UN Guiding Principles in its considerations, contrary to the respondents’ reply.150 50. Customary international law represents another anchor for binding corporate obligations. There is broad support in the literature that corporations have direct international obligations under customary international law not to commit human rights violations that constitute international crimes such as piracy, slavery, war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, and torture.151 Furthermore, to the extent that the UDHR, or parts thereof, reflect customary international law, it may be binding on corporations.152 This submission is based on the reading of the Declaration’s preambular provisions ‘every individual’ and ‘organ of society’ in conjunction with article 30 which stipulates that Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.153 51. This interpretation was embraced in the Urbaser award mentioned above154 and in the Philippines it was corroborated by the Supreme Court, which in Republic v. Sandiganbayan found that the UDHR as a whole is part of the law of the land.155 This reading of the Declaration provides specific jurisdictional support for the Commission to hear this petition. 17