natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The documents which stem from the treaty-based mechanisms, such as, for example, the conventions monitoring committees (treaty bodies) and their reports and recommendations to all States’ parties, are not adapted to an electronic search system where it is possible to enter the name of a company and get documents where this company is mentioned. 
The documents which stem from the treaty-based mechanisms, such as, for example, the conventions monitoring committees (treaty bodies) and their reports and recommendations to all States’ parties, are not adapted to an electronic search system where it is possible to enter the name of a company and get documents where this company is mentioned.
The same applies to the so-called charter-based mechanisms, such as the UN’s Human Rights Commission, or UN Special Rapporteurs or other instances. 
The same applies to the so-called charter-based mechanisms, such as the UN’s Human Rights Commission, or UN Special Rapporteurs or other instances.
This is due to the fact that the UN is an interstate organization, which means, that it is the states’ and not companies’ conduct which is regulated. 
This is due to the fact that the UN is an interstate organization, which means, that it is the states’ and not companies’ conduct which is regulated.
It will therefore be random and rather exceptional if a company is mentioned in a general UN context in connection with human rights. 
It will therefore be random and rather exceptional if a company is mentioned in a general UN context in connection with human rights.
Even if CCEA should have undertaken manual searches in all treaty- or charter-based available documents it would not have yielded much information concerning conduct of companies. 
Even if CCEA should have undertaken manual searches in all treaty- or charter-based available documents it would not have yielded much information concerning conduct of companies.
Therefore, to the extent that it is based on UN documents, this method does not seem suited as a basis for consideration of companies’ conduct. 
Therefore, to the extent that it is based on UN documents, this method does not seem suited as a basis for consideration of companies’ conduct.
Concerning employees’ rights, the above mentioned enclosure in CCEA’s report refers to both ILO (the International Labor Organization) and to ILO’s search website, ILOLEX. 
Concerning employees’ rights, the above mentioned enclosure in CCEA’s report refers to both ILO (the International Labor Organization) and to ILO’s search website, ILOLEX.
The ILO is also an interstate organization which facilitates wide-ranging co-operation between states, employees and employers, but which is also not tasked to monitor or report specifically on the conduct of companies. 
The ILO is also an interstate organization which facilitates wide-ranging co-operation between states, employees and employers, but which is also not tasked to monitor or report specifically on the conduct of companies.
At these websites, however, it is possible to search for companies, but only if one also enters information about which specific ILO convention that is relevant, which provision of that convention that is allegedly violated, which country the incident is supposed to have taken place in, and the year the incident was alleged to have happened. 
At these websites, however, it is possible to search for companies, but only if one also enters information about which specific ILO convention that is relevant, which provision of that convention that is allegedly violated, which country the incident is supposed to have taken place in, and the year the incident was alleged to have happened.
This means that in these kind of searches one must undertake, to a large extent, a manual search on the basis of the information one already has, unless one has developed one’s own search machine connected to, for example, ILOLEX. 
This means that in these kind of searches one must undertake, to a large extent, a manual search on the basis of the information one already has, unless one has developed one’s own search machine connected to, for example, ILOLEX.
CCEA does not, when it concerns this source, explain how the searches are made or how information is collected and updated. 
CCEA does not, when it concerns this source, explain how the searches are made or how information is collected and updated.
Other UN sources mentioned in the enclosure are UN Global Compact, UN mine Action Center, IAEA (the International Atomic Energy Agency), UN Department for Disarmament Affairs, and UN Institute for Disarmament Research. 
Other UN sources mentioned in the enclosure are UN Global Compact, UN mine Action Center, IAEA (the International Atomic Energy Agency), UN Department for Disarmament Affairs, and UN Institute for Disarmament Research.
None of these sources monitors the conduct of companies, nor is it possible to go into their websites and get search results only with the help of the name of a company. 
None of these sources monitors the conduct of companies, nor is it possible to go into their websites and get search results only with the help of the name of a company.
How they are actually used in the GES method seems unclear. 
How they are actually used in the GES method seems unclear.
“UN-related sources” As mentioned, it is said in the document that the GES method is based on “a systematic study of selected UN bodies and NGOs with consultative status in the UN.” 
“UN-related sources” As mentioned, it is said in the document that the GES method is based on “a systematic study of selected UN bodies and NGOs with consultative status in the UN.”
It is evident from the context that it is these NGOs that are referred to as UN-related sources. 
It is evident from the context that it is these NGOs that are referred to as UN-related sources.
The point of departure is that the category NGO with consultative status in the UN, is extremely comprehensive. 
The point of departure is that the category NGO with consultative status in the UN, is extremely comprehensive.
The most recent obtainable list of such NGOs from ECOSOC fills 63 pages. 
The most recent obtainable list of such NGOs from ECOSOC fills 63 pages.
5NGOs in consultative status with ECOSOC,1. 
5NGOs in consultative status with ECOSOC,1.
November 2002. 
November 2002.
Web address: www.un/org/esa/coordination/ngo In the enclosure, however, CCEA has limited the NGOs to approximately ten organizations, some with high public profiles and high degrees of credibility such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, World Federation of Trade Unions, International Campaign to Ban Landmines, International Save the Children Alliance and Anti Slavery International. 
Web address: www.un/org/esa/coordination/ngo In the enclosure, however, CCEA has limited the NGOs to approximately ten organizations, some with high public profiles and high degrees of credibility such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, World Federation of Trade Unions, International Campaign to Ban Landmines, International Save the Children Alliance and Anti Slavery International.
In addition, the enclosure mentions other NGOs and several organizations and other instances that are categorized as partly “NGO” and as partly “other” without explaining the distinction between these two. 
In addition, the enclosure mentions other NGOs and several organizations and other instances that are categorized as partly “NGO” and as partly “other” without explaining the distinction between these two.
The Petroleum Fund Advisory Commission presumes that it would be possible to monitor the websites of many of these NGOs, and in this way, at least to a certain degree, keep updated on concrete situations concerning serious human rights violations which are publicised in the press or otherwise known. 
The Petroleum Fund Advisory Commission presumes that it would be possible to monitor the websites of many of these NGOs, and in this way, at least to a certain degree, keep updated on concrete situations concerning serious human rights violations which are publicised in the press or otherwise known.
On the home pages of, for example, Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, a search system has been set up which makes it possible to search in their web-archives for, inter alia, companies. 
On the home pages of, for example, Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, a search system has been set up which makes it possible to search in their web-archives for, inter alia, companies.
In order to capture all reported human rights violations, however, a comprehensive and systematic monitoring would be necessary. 
In order to capture all reported human rights violations, however, a comprehensive and systematic monitoring would be necessary.
Whether or how such a possible monitoring is undertaken by the CCEA is not explained in the report. 
Whether or how such a possible monitoring is undertaken by the CCEA is not explained in the report.
The Advisory Commission wants to point out that it is generally misleading to call NGOs UN-related sources. 
The Advisory Commission wants to point out that it is generally misleading to call NGOs UN-related sources.
There is a fundamental difference between an interstate organization (IGO), such as the UN, and a non-governmental organization (NGO). 
There is a fundamental difference between an interstate organization (IGO), such as the UN, and a non-governmental organization (NGO).
Where some of the latter have consultative status with the UN, it is to promote the views of non-governmental actors which otherwise would not be heard in the UN system. 
Where some of the latter have consultative status with the UN, it is to promote the views of non-governmental actors which otherwise would not be heard in the UN system.
Most NGOs, on this background, would take exception to being referred to as UN-related. 
Most NGOs, on this background, would take exception to being referred to as UN-related.
The Method of Evaluation According to the CCEA document, reported human rights violations are verified against two sets of criteria, the so-called “Reporting Source Criteria” and “Incident Criteria”. 
The Method of Evaluation According to the CCEA document, reported human rights violations are verified against two sets of criteria, the so-called “Reporting Source Criteria” and “Incident Criteria”.
These first-mentioned criteria are considered met when one or more of the following occurs: 
These first-mentioned criteria are considered met when one or more of the following occurs:
the reported violation is being examined by an official source (i.e. 
the reported violation is being examined by an official source (i.e.
UN body) 
UN body)
the company is being subject to a sanction (“sanctioned”) by a regional or national court of law or another public body 
the company is being subject to a sanction (“sanctioned”) by a regional or national court of law or another public body
the company has accepted responsibility for the violation 
the company has accepted responsibility for the violation
The last-mentioned criteria (Incident Criteria) are considered met when the company is associated with systematic occurrences that have led to serious negative consequences, when systematic occurrences have led to lesser consequences, and finally when isolated occurrences have led to serious negative consequences. 
The last-mentioned criteria (Incident Criteria) are considered met when the company is associated with systematic occurrences that have led to serious negative consequences, when systematic occurrences have led to lesser consequences, and finally when isolated occurrences have led to serious negative consequences.
Exclusion is recommended when both Reporting Source Criteria and Incident Criteria are met. 
Exclusion is recommended when both Reporting Source Criteria and Incident Criteria are met.
6CCEA doc. 
6CCEA doc.
Page 5 
Page 5
It is somewhat unclear what the first of the three “Reporting Source Criteria” implies. 
It is somewhat unclear what the first of the three “Reporting Source Criteria” implies.
To the extent that the human rights conventions’ treaty bodies “examine” human rights violations, it is either in the form of consideration of periodic reports from states parties on their implementation on the relevant conventions or in individual complaint cases. 
To the extent that the human rights conventions’ treaty bodies “examine” human rights violations, it is either in the form of consideration of periodic reports from states parties on their implementation on the relevant conventions or in individual complaint cases.
In both instances, it is the states that are being “examined”, not companies. 
In both instances, it is the states that are being “examined”, not companies.
The same applies to documents from the Special Rapporteurs. 
The same applies to documents from the Special Rapporteurs.
As concerns the central UN organs, such as the General Assembly, the Security Council, ECOSOC or the International Court of Justice, there are neither examinations nor evaluations of companies’ conduct. 
As concerns the central UN organs, such as the General Assembly, the Security Council, ECOSOC or the International Court of Justice, there are neither examinations nor evaluations of companies’ conduct.
This is the general point of departure for both the UN as well as ILO. 
This is the general point of departure for both the UN as well as ILO.
In an ILO context, however, there are greater possibilities that companies could be mentioned in connection with complaints or reports on violations of employees’ rights. 
In an ILO context, however, there are greater possibilities that companies could be mentioned in connection with complaints or reports on violations of employees’ rights.
Companies are, however, not subject to “examination” or any other form of authoritative evaluation by an ILO body. 
Companies are, however, not subject to “examination” or any other form of authoritative evaluation by an ILO body.
The basis for the system is that the states must provide that companies are not allowed to contribute to violations of rights. 
The basis for the system is that the states must provide that companies are not allowed to contribute to violations of rights.
It should be noted that ILO is not considered as an UN organ, but as a “specialized agency”. 
It should be noted that ILO is not considered as an UN organ, but as a “specialized agency”.
The Advisory Commission on International Law’s Evaluation 
The Advisory Commission on International Law’s Evaluation
The Advisory Commission on International Law finds it difficult to fully evaluate the validity of the GES method from the general description in the document, but if applied as it is described, it is probable that it will provide incomplete information about companies’ conduct and production. 
The Advisory Commission on International Law finds it difficult to fully evaluate the validity of the GES method from the general description in the document, but if applied as it is described, it is probable that it will provide incomplete information about companies’ conduct and production.
The mentioned main sources, namely UN sources and UN-related sources, cannot to a great degree, give information on how companies behave. 
The mentioned main sources, namely UN sources and UN-related sources, cannot to a great degree, give information on how companies behave.
Furthermore, it is generally unclear what the first “Reporting Source Criterion” implies, and this constitutes a central part of its method. 
Furthermore, it is generally unclear what the first “Reporting Source Criterion” implies, and this constitutes a central part of its method.
It is therefore difficult to see that the GES method will function satisfactorily in practice. 
It is therefore difficult to see that the GES method will function satisfactorily in practice.
When there is question of withdrawal of companies from the investment universe because of alleged human rights violations, it ought to be possible to somehow check or confirm the allegations that stem from the sources used. 
When there is question of withdrawal of companies from the investment universe because of alleged human rights violations, it ought to be possible to somehow check or confirm the allegations that stem from the sources used.
The way the GES method has been described and the way the results have been documented in CCEA’s report, this requirement has not been met. 
The way the GES method has been described and the way the results have been documented in CCEA’s report, this requirement has not been met.
The Concrete Recommendations 
The Concrete Recommendations
Marriott CCEA recommends that 14 securities that seem to belong to 4 different companies which are related to Marriott International Inc. should be withdrawn from the investment universe. 
Marriott CCEA recommends that 14 securities that seem to belong to 4 different companies which are related to Marriott International Inc. should be withdrawn from the investment universe.
The grounds given are NGO reports on sexual exploitation of children which has taken place at the Marriott Hotel in Costa Rica, together with a conviction of a person in the Supreme Court of Costa Rica for sexual exploitation of children. 
The grounds given are NGO reports on sexual exploitation of children which has taken place at the Marriott Hotel in Costa Rica, together with a conviction of a person in the Supreme Court of Costa Rica for sexual exploitation of children.
The reports come from two NGOs, Casa Alianza and GMACL (Global March Against Child Labour). 
The reports come from two NGOs, Casa Alianza and GMACL (Global March Against Child Labour).
7It may be mentioned that neither of the two mentioned NGOs are found among the NGOs from ECOSOC’s 63-page long list of NGOs with UN consultative status. 
7It may be mentioned that neither of the two mentioned NGOs are found among the NGOs from ECOSOC’s 63-page long list of NGOs with UN consultative status.
The CCEA’s document provides references to websites for some of the documents it refers to, but most of them are not accessible on the Internet. 
The CCEA’s document provides references to websites for some of the documents it refers to, but most of them are not accessible on the Internet.
8It is stated that a document is available that constitutes a part of the two mentioned NGOs’ presentation to the UN working group (UN Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery). 
8It is stated that a document is available that constitutes a part of the two mentioned NGOs’ presentation to the UN working group (UN Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery).
This document is referred to in the form of two websites neither of which are available, but where it is apparent that this is the year 1999 they are speaking about. 
This document is referred to in the form of two websites neither of which are available, but where it is apparent that this is the year 1999 they are speaking about.
In the Working Group’s report for 2000 (in 1999 no report was published) is there nothing of the two NGOs CCEA mentions stated as observers under the working group’s yearly session, see UN document E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/23, 21 July 2000, Para 12-14, page 5 Through a quick look at these two organizations’ home pages, we found several references to the penal case against the person who was sentenced for promoting prostitution, but none of the references implies that the Marriott chain is guilty as an accessory to this activity. 
In the Working Group’s report for 2000 (in 1999 no report was published) is there nothing of the two NGOs CCEA mentions stated as observers under the working group’s yearly session, see UN document E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/23, 21 July 2000, Para 12-14, page 5 Through a quick look at these two organizations’ home pages, we found several references to the penal case against the person who was sentenced for promoting prostitution, but none of the references implies that the Marriott chain is guilty as an accessory to this activity.
9The only reference to Marriott was: ”Victims also reported how they had been taken to clients in the Marriott, Presidente, Del Rey and other hotels in San Jose.” 
9The only reference to Marriott was: ”Victims also reported how they had been taken to clients in the Marriott, Presidente, Del Rey and other hotels in San Jose.”
CCEA states in its document that Costa Rica has been “severely criticized in a UN arena for difficulties and weak legislation in terms of sexual exploitation”. 
CCEA states in its document that Costa Rica has been “severely criticized in a UN arena for difficulties and weak legislation in terms of sexual exploitation”.
Here, the reference is to the website of the World Tourism Organisation, where it is not possible to find this reference to the UN criticism of Costa Rica. 
Here, the reference is to the website of the World Tourism Organisation, where it is not possible to find this reference to the UN criticism of Costa Rica.
10It appears that CCEA’s understanding is that the World Tourism Organisation is an UN organization, which is incorrect The Advisory Commission points out that if Costa Rica had been criticized by the UN, the sources would, for example, be UN documents about Costa Rica under the treaty-based state reporting system, UN documents under the individual complaint system, resolutions or reports from the UN’s Human Rights Commission, or in the form of a review from one or several of the Special Rapporteurs. 
10It appears that CCEA’s understanding is that the World Tourism Organisation is an UN organization, which is incorrect The Advisory Commission points out that if Costa Rica had been criticized by the UN, the sources would, for example, be UN documents about Costa Rica under the treaty-based state reporting system, UN documents under the individual complaint system, resolutions or reports from the UN’s Human Rights Commission, or in the form of a review from one or several of the Special Rapporteurs.
Such documents would be accessible in various parts of the database of the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights. 
Such documents would be accessible in various parts of the database of the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights.
CCEA claims that the main source in this instance is a Supreme Court judgement from Costa Rica where a man has been convicted for gross promotion of prostitution and sexual exploitation of minors. 
CCEA claims that the main source in this instance is a Supreme Court judgement from Costa Rica where a man has been convicted for gross promotion of prostitution and sexual exploitation of minors.
It appeared, according to CCEA, that the man had committed several of the crimes at the Marriott Hotel in Costa Rica. 
It appeared, according to CCEA, that the man had committed several of the crimes at the Marriott Hotel in Costa Rica.
The Supreme Court judgement is not enclosed or cited, nor is it referred to with, for example, date and case number. 
The Supreme Court judgement is not enclosed or cited, nor is it referred to with, for example, date and case number.
It appears, however, from the available documentation that the hotel or the Marriott hotel chain is neither convicted nor charged in the case. 
It appears, however, from the available documentation that the hotel or the Marriott hotel chain is neither convicted nor charged in the case.
It is claimed in the document from CCEA that “The hotel Marriott in this case can be held responsible due to the fact that the Supreme Court’s verdict is based on testimony involving illegal activities taking place at the hotel’s premises.” 
It is claimed in the document from CCEA that “The hotel Marriott in this case can be held responsible due to the fact that the Supreme Court’s verdict is based on testimony involving illegal activities taking place at the hotel’s premises.”