the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, 10 sets out the obligations that should guide States in guaranteeing human rights. It also emphasizes the fact that private companies must respect those rights. Undoubtedly, both are irrevocable truths. However, I leave for reflection the question of whether we are facing a process in which companies can also be recognized as responsible for human rights violations. That is to say, not only or exclusively the States in their relationship with corporations, but in addition the corporations per se as actors of international law. b) Public policies and the role of reparation mechanisms for cases involving business and human rights 6. The issue of the international responsibility of corporations is closely linked to the consequences of the violation, in the understanding that it is a principle of international law that, in the event of a violation, reparations must be made. 11 A simple and realistic interpretation would lead us to think that, if the company was the one that caused the damage, it should also be the one to make reparations. It seems that the Court has already taken an initial step in the case of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, in which it determined that the State should, in conjunction with the mining companies, implement sufficient and necessary actions to rehabilitate the affected area. 12 Clearly, in this case, the “ownership” of the reparation measure was shared with a company. 7. In the case sub judice, the Court adopted various measures of reparation that were endorsed in the agreement between the parties. Particularly important are the measures related to public policies aimed at social protection and the productive diversification of the local economy. However, it would have been interesting – though clearly beyond our role bearing in mind that this was a mutual agreement between the parties- to have a reparation measure that mandated the participation of corporations in the tasks of assistance, mitigation or even in the social development projects proposed as reparations. 8. The issue of business and human rights is one of the greatest challenges in the interAmerican public order. Taking into account the context of Central America, the Caribbean and South America, where social inequality, high levels of migration, unemployment and informality converge, it is essential that the international system, especially the courts and tribunals, rise to this challenge. At the same time, the new technologies pose major challenges that must be addressed firmly and from a progressive and integrated human rights perspective; an endeavor and a challenge that we bequeath to the future new composition of the Court. whether international human rights law should apply to this reality to its full extent. Y. M. Kolosov & E. S. Krivchikova: Mejdunarodno pravo [International Law], Uchebnik. Mejdunarodni otnosheniya, Moscow, 2000, p. 86 10 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). Guiding Principles on businesses and human rights: implementing the United Nations “Protect, respect, Remedy” Framework, HR/PUB/11/04, 2011 11 Article 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights grants the Inter-American Court the power to order that the victim be guaranteed the right violated, as well as to order measures of reparation that include both compensation and other additional measures. For the Court, every violation of an international obligation that implies harm entails reparation. 12 Case of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2015. Series C No. 309