Principle 37 of the Maastricht Principles states that “States must ensure the enjoyment of the right to a prompt, accessible and effective remedy before an independent authority, including, where necessary, recourse to a judicial authority, for violations of economic, social and cultural rights. Where the harm resulting from an alleged violation has occurred on the territory of a State other than a State in which the harmful conduct took place, any state concerned must provide remedies to the victim.”40 In the present situation, the Philippines is a location in which harm has occurred resulting from harmful conduct that was mostly carried out in other States. It is therefore one of the ‘concerned’ States that must provide remedies to victims in Philippines, in this case commencing by assessing the wrongful conduct concerned. Furthermore, the Philippines’ obligations are not limited only to the exercise of its own jurisdiction. The commentary to Principle 4 states that even if a State is faced with conduct of other States that affects the realization of economic, social, and cultural rights within its territory—for example, if these other States permit environmental pollution—the State affected by such conduct is required to mitigate such interferences to the full extent that it is able to do so. 41 The Philippines must therefore take concrete steps to press other States to implement their own obligations that would protect the rights of the people in the Philippines. As described in Principle 26, the Philippines should influence non-state actors where it is in a position to do so to take measures towards the realization of human rights.42 Principle 26 states: “States that are in a position to influence the conduct of non-State actors even if they are not in a position to regulate such conduct, such as through their public procurement system or international diplomacy, should exercise such influence, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and general international law, in order to protect economic, social and cultural rights.”43 In addition to its obligations flowing from its duty to protect people in its territory, the Philippines should take steps within its power to influence the conduct of non-State actors, including by providing information from its investigations regarding responsibility for human rights abuses alleged in the petition to all States that have the power to exercise jurisdiction over these actors and enforce judgements. As addressed in the Petition, the alleged abuses have wide-reaching effects that are felt not only in the Philippines. With this in mind, the Philippines must not only investigate the abuses within its own jurisdiction, but should request other States to do the same. 40 Maastricht Principles, supra note 36. 41 Commentary to Maastricht Principles, Commentary to Principle 4, para. 2, supra note 4. 42 Maastricht Principles, supra note 36. 43 Id. 10