In 2010, the Constitutional and Human Rights Division of the High Court of Kenya, specifically considered whether private entities were bound by human rights obligations under the Constitution of Kenya, Judge Lenaola stating as follows18: I am . . . aware that [under the Constitution], this Court is obligated to develop the law to the extent that it gives effect to a right or fundamental freedom; and it must adopt an interpretation that favours the enforcement of a right or fundamental freedom, in order to promote the spirit and objects of the Bill of Rights . . . . It is thus clear to my mind that it would not have been the intention of the drafters of the Constitution and the Kenyan people who overwhelmingly passed the Constitution that the Bill of Rights would only bind State Organs. A purposive interpretation . . . would imply that the Bill of Rights binds all State Organs and all persons, whether they are public bodies or juristic persons. In the UK the Human Rights Act 1998 has horizontal effect partly because the Courts are treated as ‘public authorities’ for the purposes of the Act. Consequently the courts have an obligation to develop the law, including private law, in a way that is consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights. Thus in Douglas and others v Hello and others19 the common law was developed so as to ensure protection of the right to privacy. In Venables and Thompson v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd20 the High Court of England and Wales held that the common law could be developed to support a claim that the release of personal data would interfere with the claimant’s right to life. The general point may be summarized as follows: States have an obligation to secure the human rights of their citizens, no matter where the threat originates. If domestic law does not provide: a) effective deterrence against violation; and b) effective remedies in the event that violation occurs, then domestic law should be developed accordingly. For other examples The Honourable Commission may wish to consider the report of the Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (ELAW): Holding Corporations Accountable for Damaging the Climate (2014)21. 18 Satrose Ayuma v. Registered Trustees of Kenya Railway Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme, High Court of Kenya,2010: http://nebula.wsimg.com/d7723343ea6a644db7238eb2f6e8617b?AccessKeyId=E7B5A255C 426BFBF3693&disposition=0&alloworigin=1 19 [2001] 2 All ER 289 20 [2001] 1 All ER 908 21 https://www.elaw.org/system/files/elaw.climate.litigation.report.pdf 21