98. In the aforementioned case, the Court also established that companies are primarily responsible for behaving responsibly in the activities they carry out, since their active participation is essential to ensure respect for and observance of human rights. 122 Accordingly, in the context of the obligation to guarantee rights and the duty to adopt provisions of domestic law derived from Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention, the State has a duty to prevent human rights violations committed by private companies, and therefore must adopt legislative or other types of measures to prevent such violations, and to investigate, punish and provide reparation when they occur. 123 In short, this obligation must be assumed by companies and regulated by the State. 124 99. It is important to note that the UN Guiding Principles require that States provide, as part of their duty to protect against corporate human rights abuses, access to effective redress mechanisms– both judicial and non-judicial State mechanisms, as well as nonState mechanisms– and to this end they must eliminate any barriers to access to reparation for the affected persons. 100. Thus, in pursuit of these goals, States should take measures to ensure that businesses adopt: (i) appropriate policies for the protection of human rights; (ii) good corporate governance practices that focus on stakeholders, with actions aimed at guiding business activities toward compliance with standards and respect for human rights; (iii) due diligence processes for the identification, prevention and correction of human rights violations, and to ensure dignified and decent work; and (iv) procedures that allow businesses to remedy human rights violations resulting from their activities, especially when these affect people living in poverty or vulnerable groups. 125 101. With regard to the protection of members of the LGBTIQ+ community, the Court notes that the deep-rooted social stigma and negative stereotypes that currently affect the LGBTIQ+ community perpetuate acts of discrimination against them in the workplace, in the marketplace and in the community at large. In this regard, Yogyakarta Principle 2.f establishes that States must “take all appropriate actions, including education and training programs, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudicial or discriminatory attitudes or behaviors related to the idea of the inferiority or superiority of any sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.” 126 102. In order to eliminate all types of discriminatory practices and attitudes and achieve material equality–beyond formal equality- the involvement of the entire community is necessary, particularly the business sector. Indeed, the business sector not only has the possibility, but also the responsibility of promoting positive change for the LGBTIQ+ community. This means that companies must assume their responsibility to respect the rights of LGBTIQ+ people, not only in the workplace, but also in their commercial relationships through the supply of products or services. In this regard, the expert witness Laura Otero Norza stated that, in the context of the protection and promotion of Cf. Case of the Miskito Divers (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras, supra, para. 51. Cf. Case of the Miskito Divers (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras, supra, para. 48. 124 Cf. Case of the Miskito Divers (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras, supra, para. 51. 125 Cf., mutatis mutandis, Case of the Miskito Divers (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras, supra, para. 49. 126 Cf. Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, Yogyakarta Principles, March 2007, Principle 2.f. 122 123 33