Such a course of action by the Commission would find strong support in international jurisprudence.295 International courts have relied on the UNGPs 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.” 296 The IACtHR 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.” 297 Similarly, after examining international developments in the area of business and human rights, and specifically the UNGPs, as well as provisions of the ICESCR and the UDHR, the Tribunal in Urbaser v. Argentina 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.”298 The Special Tribunal for Lebanon found that the individual’s right to access remedy in case of corporate violations was supported by the UNGPs on the grounds that the 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.299 Finally, the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises has submitted letters of allegations and urgent appeals to both States and companies by relying on the UNGPs. 300 295 See APF & GANHRI brief, at ¶¶ 47-49. Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R., Judgment (Merits, Reparations, and Costs), ¶ 224 (Nov. 25, 2015), http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_309_ing.pdf. 297 Id. at ¶ 223. 298 Urbaser S.A. & Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26, Award, ¶ 1999 (Dec. 8, 2016). 299 Case against New TV S.A.L. and Karma Mohamed Tahsin al Khayat, STL-14-05/PT/AP/ARI26.1, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Concerning Personal Jurisdiction in Contempt Proceedings, Special Tribunal for Lebanon, ¶ 46 (Oct. 2, 2014). 300 See Ioana Cismas & Sarah Macrory, The Business and Human Rights Regime under International Law: Remedy Without Law? (forthcoming 2018) (on file with Cismas). 296 61