damage caused by third parties, with appropriate supervision and monitoring mechanisms 260 that guarantee human rights; in particular by supervising and monitoring environmental impact assessments. The Court also notes that Article 32 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples stipulates that “States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental, […] impact.” 222. Thus, the adverse impacts in the above-mentioned area directly affected the natural resources of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples within an area that they have traditionally used. In addition, not only were such impacts not avoided by preventive mechanisms or appropriate measures to mitigate the damage occasioned by the State, such as the supervision of an environmental impact assessment, but the negative effects have continued over time, thus affecting the traditional territory and the means of survival of the members of these peoples. Furthermore, the Court recalls that the State is also responsible for supervising and monitoring actions taken on the affected territory in order to achieve its prompt rehabilitation so as to ensure the full use and enjoyment of the rights of the peoples. 223. The Court notes that the mining activities that resulted in the adverse impact on the environment and, consequently, on the rights of the indigenous peoples, were carried out by private agents; first by Suralco alone, and then by the joint venture, BHP Billiton-Suralco. 224. In this regard, the Court takes note of the “Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights,”261 endorsed by the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, which 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. 262 Hence, as reiterated by these principles, “States must protect against human rights abuse within their territory and/or jurisdiction by third parties, including business enterprises. This requires taking appropriate steps to prevent, investigate, punish and redress such abuse through effective policies, legislation, regulations and adjudication.”263 225. Thus, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises has indicated that businesses must respect the human rights of members of specific groups or 260 Cf. Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, para. 133, and Case of Gonzales Lluy el al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298, para. 184. 261 Cf. UN, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework. Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, John Ruggie, presented to the seventeenth session of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, A/HRC/17/31, 21 March 2011. Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/TransnationalCorporations/Pages/Reports.aspx. The Human Rights Council endorsed these principles and created a working group to promote their implementation. Cf. Human Rights Council, Resolution 17/4, UN Doc. A/HRC/17/4, 6 July 2011. Available at: http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G11/144/74/PDF G1114474.pdf? OpenElement. Also, cf. The Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights: An Interpretive Guide. Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/ HR.PUB.12.2_En.pdf. Likewise, in a resolution of June 4, 2014, the Organization of American States emphasized the need to continue implementing legally binding instruments for businesses and to facilitate “the exchange of information and sharing of best practices on promotion and protection of human rights in business.” Cf. Resolution AG/RES. 2840 (XLIVO/14), on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in Business, adopted at the second plenary session held on June 4, 2014. Available at: http://www.oas.org/en/sla/dil/docs/AG-RES_2840_XLIV-O-14.pdf. 262 Cf. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, supra, Principles 1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 22, 25. 263 Cf. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, supra, Principle 1. 59