Memorandum for the Petitioners | 24 4.10. To remove further doubt on the matter, Commission highlighted the following during the opening hearings on 27 March 2018: the Honorable of the public ... What the CHR can and does have the ability to do is to investigate and monitor matters concerning the civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights of persons, with a particular focus and concern on those who often are unable to protect themselves or to assert their rights, such as those who belong to the marginalized vulnerable sectors of our society. That is to say we may be able, as a Commission, to look into the facts and circumstances of an event or series of events and, after due consideration and deliberation, make a determination utilizing all the relevant expertise at our disposal, whether there has occurred a human rights violation and to consider who the perpetrators might be. For this purpose and in this instance, the Commission has decided to give due course to this petition and to conduct a National Inquiry akin to other national inquiries that we have already regularly conducted with regards [sic], for example, to indigenous people’s rights and on the implementation of the Reproductive Health Law’s impact on women’s rights. 4.11. The remedies sought by the petitioners are, therefore, entirely appropriate, including the request that respondent Carbon Majors submit plans indicating how these violations or threat of violations will be eliminated, remedied, and prevented in the future. The request that other States, including the States of incorporation of the respondent Carbon Majors, be called upon “to take steps to prevent, remedy, or eliminate human rights violations or threats of violations resulting from the impact of climate change” is also entirely reasonable.®” As amicus expert Sara Seck puts it, “[i]ndeed, it is in keeping with the duty of international cooperation that is essential to solving the climate crisis.” 4.12. Petitioners are not asking the Honorable Commission to go beyond its constitutional mandate; rather, it should give life and breadth to its investigatory, recommendatory, and monitoring powers by making actual findings that correctly reflect the pieces of evidence established during the entire proceeding. 66 Opening Remarks of Chairman Jose Luis Martin C. Gascon, TSN dated 27-28 March 2018, pp. 3-4, supra note 56. 67 Seck, S., Amicus Submission, dated 12 November 2016, supra note 43, p. 7. 68 Id.