An organization should avoid complicity in human rights abuses, whether direct, beneficial or silent. It should: check that the way it arranges security respects human rights and fits international norms and standards for policing, that security staff it employs, contracts or subcontracts are properly trained, human rights standards included, that complaints about security procedures or staff are dealt with and looked into quickly and, where fitting, independently, and that due diligence prevents it from taking part in, assisting or profiting from abuses by state security forces; not supply goods or services to anyone who uses them to commit abuses; not enter any partnership or contract, formal or informal, with a partner that commits abuses in connection with that partnership or work; find out about the social and environmental conditions under which the goods and services it buys are made; make sure it plays no part in removing people from their land unless national law and international norms are followed, alternatives have been examined and adequate compensation paid; consider speaking out publicly or acting in other ways to show it does not tolerate abuses such as employment discrimination in the country concerned; and avoid dealings with entities involved in anti-social activity, building the legal and social tests of complicity into its due diligence.
The graph holds this control, the 0 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.