...I see little difference between our positions... [Even] where the State duty to protect against third party abuse is not expressly stipulated in a treaty, it is logically implied by the requirement that States “ensure” (or an equivalent verb) the enjoyment/realization of rights by rights holders... [My] 2009 report reiterates that the State duty to protect is a duty of conduct, not result: “States are not held responsible for corporate-related human rights per se, but may be considered in breach of their obligations where they fail to take appropriate steps to prevent it and to investigate, punish and redress it when it occurs”...