4th meeting, 12th Session of Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations Human Rights Council Date: 13 October 2026 Language: Floor (Original) Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/ar/asset/k1m/k1mzhzr1gd?lang=floor Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations. --- Presidente-Relator [0:01]: Buenas tardes. Distinguidos delegados distinguidos representantes. Declaro abierta la 4.ª reunión del 12.º periodo de sesiones del grupo de Trabajo Intergubernamental, de composición abierta, sobre las empresas transnacionales y otras empresas con respecto a los derechos humanos. En seguimiento a la reunión de esta mañana continuaremos esta tarde con la propuesta siete, artículo 16.3, zonas afectadas. por conflictos. Efectivamente, esta séptima propuesta de reformulación relativa al artículo 16.3, sobre las actividades empresariales en zonas afectadas por conflictos, la cual busca clarificar la disposición y fortalecer su alineamiento con los principios y normas del Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos y el Derecho Internacional Humanitario. Este párrafo prevé medidas específicas en contextos de conflicto orientadas a identificar, prevenir y mitigar los riesgos de abusos, con atención particular a la violencia de género y sexual, al uso de niños soldados y a las peores formas de trabajo infantil. No obstante, se pudo constatar que su redacción original se apartaba de la de los demás párrafos del artículo 16, al no estar formulada como una obligación de los Estados. Al respecto, cabe recordar que este párrafo recibió un número importante de propuestas durante la 11.ª sesión entre ellas las relativas a la terminología aplicable como zonas de alto riesgo o zonas afectadas por conflictos. armados. Al carácter transnacional de las actividades, a una debida diligencia reforzada obligatoria y continua, Continua, a la sustitución de la referencia a los niños soldados, y al mantenimiento de la referencia a las peores formas de trabajo infantil sobre la base de la ratificación universal del convenio número 182 de la OIT. Asimismo, tanto en esa sesión como en las consultas temáticas interseccionales, se dialogó acerca de si las obligaciones de este párrafo recaen en los estados en las empresas o en ambos. Y algunas delegaciones sugirieron ubicar parte de su contenido. en el artículo 6. Adicionalmente, cabe recordar que los principios rectores se refieren a las zonas afectadas por conflictos expresión más amplia que la de conflicto armado de los convenios de Ginebra. Y que, conforme a dichos principios, cuando una empresa no puede prevenir ni mitigar un impacto mitigar un impacto adverso, debe considerar poner fin a la relación teniendo en cuenta la gravedad del abuso y las consecuencias de la terminación sobre otros derechos humanos. los conflictos armados se refiere tanto al reclutamiento como a la participación en las hostilidades. Por último entre otras fuentes adicionales se tomaron en consideración El 4.º Convenio de Ginebra y sus protocolos adicionales I y II. El convenio número 182 de la OIT. Los principios rectores siete 12 y 19. El informe A barra 75 barra 212 del grupo de trabajo sobre las empresas y los derechos humanos. Y la guía del PNUD de 2020. 2022 sobre debida diligencia reforzada en contextos afectados por conflictos. Con estos antecedentes, la presidencia relatoria propone configurar la disposición como una obligación de los Estados partes de adoptar medidas especiales, en consonancia con el resto del artículo 16. Conservar la expresión zonas afectadas por conflictos y extender la disposición a las actividades y también a las relaciones empresariales. precisar que los Estados deberán asegurar que las empresas identifiquen, prevengan y mitiguen los mayores riesgos para los derechos humanos. Sustituir la referencia al uso de niños soldados por el reclutamiento y la utilización de niños. En línea con el protocolo facultativo a la Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño. Incorporar una nueva frase, según la cual los Estados partes asegurarán que las empresas pongan fin a sus actividades y relaciones empresariales en dichas zonas, cuando los abusos no puedan prevenirse ni mitigarse. Con esta introducción ofrezco la palabra, en primer lugar, a los Estados que deseen realizar intervenciones con comentarios a la propuesta siete de reformulación del artículo 16.7. 6.3. El Estado de Palestina tiene la palabra. State of Palestine · Representante [6:44]: Thank you excellency chair as the representative of the people living under illegal occupation for the state of palestine article 16 is among the most important provisions of this draft. Two weeks ago, the office of the high commissioner listed 214 companies involved in illegal Israeli settlements, supplying the militian equipment, surveillance and services that sustained them. And as we stated yesterday, the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 has documented how corporate and financial actors supply the weapons, technology, and finance that have transformed an economy of occupation into an economy of genocide. That is the kind of reality that this paragraph must address. Speaking on 16.3, the chair's redraft is an improvement. It says who must act, and it extends the duty to businesses relationships, which we strongly support, but it still requires strengthening in some key areas. The following points are priority to our delegations. First, the special measures. State parties are expected to take to take appear to amount to the general human rights due diligence that Article six requires everywhere, without the specific requirement of enhanced due diligence in conflict affected areas, and that the draft once contained. In conflict affected areas and under occupation where there are heightened risks, states must go beyond human rights due diligence and take the full range of measures, which the paragraph should spell out precisely as non exhaustive list. These are a requiring business enterprises to undertake enhanced human rights and environmental due diligence that, is mandatory, continuous and legally enforceable. To identify, prevent, remediate abuses and violations. To prevent and mitigate risks and to respect the applicable rules of international humanitarian law. B, prohibiting business activities and relationships and restricting the export, import and transfer of goods, services, technology and finance. including arms and dual use items that cause contribute or to or are linked to such abuses and violations. And C, requiring divestment and termination, to which we return below. As an illustrative example, recently, several states have prohibited imports from settlements as required by them under international law. And per the ICJ advisory opinion in 2024, which confirmed that all states must abstain from economic or trade dealings with Israel concerning the occupied Palestinian territory, that may entrench its unlawful press presence and must take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in maintaining the illegal situation. This shows that such measures are practical. Second, the paragraph must explicitly explicitly refer to international humanitarian law. States parties should be required to take all appropriate measures to prevent and minimize the risk of human rights abuses and violations. And of violations of international humanitarian law. In the context of business activities and business relationships, relationships in conflict affected areas, including in situations of occupation. The paragraph must also explicitly refer to the risk of involvement in war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. It should list forced displacement of populations and disposition of lands and territories which are prohibited under the and under humanitarian law alongside gender based and sexual violence. The recruitment of children by armed forces and armed groups and their use in hostilities, the worst form of child labor as defined in ILO convention number 182 and contemporary forms of slavery. It should also require states parties to ensure the protection and meaningful participation of affected persons, especially women, children, and human rights defenders. Third, we strongly support the chair's addition of a sentence on terminating businesses, activities and relationships. But we also believe believe that the last part of the sentence should be reformulated. Human rights abuses and violations that have occurred can only be remedied. They cannot be mitigated. Only risks can be mitigated. The words all mitigated should therefore be deleted. The sentence should also require enterprises to divest from and terminate their business activities and relationships where human rights risks are heightened and cannot be effectively prevented. Where abuses and violations have occurred or cannot be prevented. Or where risks are too serious and the potential harms are irreparable. We also suggest adding a duty to note, a duty to not to initiate any activities and relationships in conflict affected areas, where abuses and violations cannot be prevented or where risk of abuses or violations is identified before the activities are implemented. Finally, chair, Given the serious risk of gross human rights abuses and violations in conflict affected areas, Article eight on legal liability should be reviewed to ensure effective deterrence and accountability. and accountability where states and corporations involved in business activities and conflict affected areas, including situations of occupation, cause or contribute to serious violations of international law. including international criminal law and international humanitarian law. We will send that in writing too. Thank you. Presidente-Relator [13:10]: Muchas gracias al estado de Palestina. La Unión Europea tiene la palabra. EU · Representante [13:25]: Thank you for giving us the floor. We appreciate the intention of the revised Article 16.3 to clarify that states are to ensure appropriate actions by businesses. by business enterprises in conflict affected areas, and notably that they should carry out heightened human rights due diligence. Regarding the proposed requirement to terminate business activities and relationships, it might be worthwhile considering a more differentiated approach. The amended Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive provides for the suspension of business relationships as a last resort until the impact is addressed, subject to safeguards, as well as enhanced prevention or corrective action plans. where there is a reasonable expectation of success. The consequences of suspension for affected persons also need to be considered under this approach. Presidente-Relator [14:30]: Muchas gracias a la Unión Europea. Egipto tiene la palabra. Egypt · Representante [14:45]: Mr. Chair we look positively on the proposed text by the chair in 16.3. we have two minor suggestions. The first one is in the second line after the word. and business relationships, is to add off transnational character to just align the wording with with the scope of this LBI. And right exactly afterward adding the word of transnational character, comma. We also think it might be beneficial to look at changing the word conflict affected areas and make it situations of armed conflict and occupation, comma. So to just expand the to be specific that conflict is armed conflict and also to add reference to situations of occupation. Thank you Mr. President. Presidente-Relator [15:48]: Muchas gracias Egipto. Arabia Saudita tiene la palabra. Saudi Arabia · Representante [16:02]: شكرا السيد الرئيس. فيما يتعلق في المادة المقترحة 16.3 تتفهم المملكة الاعتبارات التي تستدعي إلى إهتمام خاص للأنشطة التجارية في المناطق المتأثرة بالنزاعات، إلا أن المملكة تلاحظ أن الصياغة المقترحة قد حولت هذا الحكم من إلى إهتمام خاص، إلى إلتزام بتحقيق النتيجة، بإلزام الدول بأن تكفل إنهاء مؤسسات الأعمال لأنشطتها وعلاقاتها التجارية في تلك المناطق، دون مراعاة لجسامة الأثر او للآثار السلبية المحتملة للانسحاب على السكان المحليين وحقوقهم، وهي اعتبارات اشارت اليها خلفية مقترح الرئيس المقرر ذاته، كما ان أن مفهوم المناطق المتأثرة بالنزاعات غير معرف في الصك، بما قد يفتح المجال لتحديدات أحادية أو متباينة. وعليه تقترح المملكة أن تتخذ الدول الأطراف وفقا لنظمها القانونية الداخلية التدابير المناسبة بدلا من التدابير الخاصة، وأن يحدد وصف هذه المناطق على أساس معايير واضح موضوعية وفقا للقانون الدولي. ودون مساس بسيادة الدول المالية بهدف بهدف أن تحدد مؤسسات الأعمال المخاطر المتزايدة المرتبطة بأنشطتها وعلاقاتها في تلك المناطق وتمنعها وتخفف منها. كما تقترح المملكة في الحالات التي التي يتعذر فيها منع تلك المخاطر أو التخفيف منها من خلال تدابير معقولة ومتناسبة، أن تلزم الدول مؤسسات الأعمال، مؤسسات الأعمال بالنظر في الإنهاء المسؤول لأنشطتها وعلاقاتها التجارية ذات الصلة، بدلا من إلزامها بالإنهاء مع مراعاة جسامة الآثار السلبية المحتملة على حقوق الإنسان وعواقب الإنهاء بما في ذلك على الأشخاص والمجتمعات المتعثرة. وشكرا للسيد الرئيس. Presidente-Relator [18:25]: Muchas gracias a Arabia Saudita. Brasil tiene la palabra. Brazil · Representante [18:40]: Thank you chair for the floor. We welcome the proposal seven, and in particular the chair's edits in particular eliminated the reference to soldiers on children. And the inclusion of the mandate for enterprises to execute a responsible exit, as mentioned in the justification presented by the proposal, We understand that this disengagement process needs to be carefully evaluated to address any potential adverse impacts caused by the discontinuation of operations itself. as my colleague from Saudi Arabia was also mentioning. So we would be keen to work on some language to properly reflect that idea of responsible exit in the second part of the paragraph. possibly responsibly terminate their business activities, although I don't think it's the the best. And ensuring the protection and meaningful participation of affected persons could also be seen as this idea of responsible exit, which is on the on the draft currently. We also emphasize the necessity of referencing contemporary forms of slavery after child labor, I believe. That's how it's reflected on the draft. And the worst forms of child labor, as defined by ILO Convention 182. 182. that's it for the moment. Thank you. Presidente-Relator [20:18]: Muchas gracias. tiene la palabra Cuba · Representante [20:28]: Muchas gracias señor presidente. Cuba expresa su respaldo a los planteamientos formulados por la delegación de Palestina con respecto al párrafo 16.3. Cuba celebra la audición por parte de la presidencia del lenguaje sobre la terminación de actividades y relaciones comerciales al final del artículo 16.2. 16.3. Igualmente apoyamos la propuesta de reformular su parte final. Creemos que los abusos y violaciones ya aburridos deben ser remediados, no mitigados. Nostra delegación igualmente respalda que la disposición exija a las empresas poner término a sus actividades y relaciones donde los riesgos sean elevados y no puedan prevenirse eficazmente. Donde hayan ocurrido abusos. y violaciones o donde los daños potenciales sean irreparables. Nuestra delegación coincide en que las medidas especiales deben superar la debida diligencia general prevista en el artículo. seis. En las zonas afectadas por conflicto y baja ocupación, los Estados partes deben adoptar una lista de medidas precisas que incluye la debida diligencia reforzada, así como la prohibición de actividades y relaciones comerciales y la restricción de exportación importación y transferencia de varios artículos, entre ellos armas y artículos de doble uso. Compartimos la necesidad de incluir una referencia explícita al derecho internacional humanitario y a los riesgos de crímenes de guerra. Respaldamos la inclusión del término desplazamiento forzado, el despojo de tierras y territorios, la violencia sexual y de género, el reclutamiento de niños, las peores formas de trabajo infantil y las formas contemporáneas de esclavitud. También apoyamos las propuestas realizadas por nuestro colega de Egipto de alinear el lenguaje del párrafo con el alcance del instrumento legalmente vinculado, vinculante y hacer referencia a actividades de carácter transnacional. Igualmente, podemos apoyar su propuesta de reemplazar áreas afectadas por conflictos con la frase situación de conflicto armado situación de ocupación. Muchas gracias. Presidente-Relator [22:58]: Muchas gracias a Cuba. Uruguay tiene la palabra. Uruguay · Representante [23:09]: Gracias señor presidente relator. Apreciamos los ajustes propuestos destinados a fortalecer la identificación, prevención y mitigación de los riesgos. Evaluamos positivamente la sustitución de la referencia a los niños soldados por una formulación que abarque el reclutamiento y la utilización de niños y niñas, en línea con el protocolo facultativo de la Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño, relativo a la participación de niños y niñas en los conflictos armados, y también acorde con la terminología consolidada dentro de la agenda de niños y niñas y conflictos armados. Tomamos nota de que el documento del presidente relator también plantea la cuestión de la ubicación más adecuada para el art. artículo 16 sobre las referencias relativas a la protección y participación significativa de las personas afectadas. En todo caso consideramos importante que el futuro instrumento preserve estas referencias incluidas respecto a las personas en situación de especial. vulnerabilidad, en particular las mujeres y los niños y niñas, así como los defensores de los derechos humanos. A respecto a la propuesta de garantizar el cese de actividades o relaciones comerciales, cuando los abusos no puedan prevenir o mitigar se. Consideramos que este elemento requiere un examen adicional. En particular en lo que se refiere a las condiciones y modalidades de aplicación de una obligación de esta naturaleza. Incluida la posibilidad de contemplar un cese responsable que tenga debidamente en cuenta sus posibles consecuencias para los derechos humanos de las personas y comunidades afectadas. Muchas gracias. Presidente-Relator [24:39]: Muchas gracias al Uruguay. الاستاذ قطار تينه لا Qatar · Representante [24:54]: أه سطاش فاصلة ثلاثة. أه تقر أه دولة قطر بتزايد مخاطر الإنتهاكات الجسيمة لحقوق الإنسان المرتبطة بالأنشطة التجارية في المناطق المتأثرة بالنزاعات. وعلينا فإننا نؤيد الهدف المتمثل في تعزيز التدابير الوقائية وضمان قيام المؤسسات التجارية ببذل العناية الواجبة المناسبة لتحديد هذه المخاطر ومعالجتها. كما نقر بأهم بأهمية حماية الأشخاص الأكثر عرضة للخطر، بمن فيهم النساء والأطفال، والتصدي لممارسات من قبيل تجنيد الأطفال، واستخدامهم في أسوأ أشكال عمل الأطفال. ومع ذلك نرى أن الشرط المقترح بإنهاء الأنشطة التجارية أو العلاقات التجارية في الحالات التي يتعذر فيها منع الانتهاكات أو التخفيف من حدتها يستلزم مزيدا من التوضيح. وعلى وجه الخصوص، ينبغي أن تحدد المادة معايير واضحة لتقرير الحالات التي يعتبر فيها المنح أو التخفيف من حدة المت المخاطر متعذرا. وأن تبين مسؤوليات ذات الصلة لكل من الدول والمؤسسات التجارية. وينبغي أيضا أن تأخذ في الاعتبار العوائق العواقب المحتملة لإنهاء الأنشطة التجارية على حقوق الإنسان، ولا سيما عندما تتعلق هذه الأنشطة بتوفير الخدمات الأساسية أو فرص العمل أو سبل عيش المجتمعات المتضررة. ولذلك نقترح أن تتضمن المادة مفهوم الانسحاب المسؤول مع مراعاة مناسبة أه لخطورة المخاطر والتدابير الوقائية المتاحة والعواقب المترتبة على الانسحاب. كما نرحب بتوضيح العلاقة بين هذا الحكم والقانون الدولي الإنساني. للإنسان الواجب التطبيق. وإلى وفدنا أن إدخال هذه التحسينات من شأنه أن يعزز الفعالية العملية ل العملية لهذه المادة مع تجنب العواقب السلبية غير المقصودة. شكرا سيد الرئيس. Presidente-Relator [26:38]: Muchas gracias. Al estado de Qatar. Islandia tiene la palabra. Iceland · Representante [27:05]: On article 163 iceland supports strengthening this article as a clear obligation of states parties and moreover we welcome the alignment with the optional protocol. to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and with ILO Convention number 182. Iceland could also be open to placing the operative core elements of this article in Article six, as has been discussed in previous sessions, but just throwing that out there. Moving forward to the final sentence of this redrafted article, Iceland would encourage alignment with the approach of guiding principle 19 and the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises, under which this engagement is considered responsibly and with due regard to its impact. on affected rights holders. And the purpose to this point is that categorical termination obligations could, in some situations, worsen the circumstances of the rights holders that this provision seeks to protect to begin with. So that is our suggestion for 16 to 3. Thank you. Presidente-Relator [28:22]: Muchas gracias a Islandia. Japón tiene la palabra. Japan · Representante [28:41]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. With regards to article 60.3, while Japan still reserves its position on the article, we would like to appreciate that Chai Reporter's proposal has made it clear that it is not business enterprises, but states parties that shall undertake special measures. Thank you. Presidente-Relator [29:02]: Muchas gracias al Japón El Reino Unido tiene la palabra. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland · Representante [29:17]: Thank you Chair. The UK recognises the particular challenges of conflict affected areas, the need for special protection of children and others against sexual and gender. based violence and the importance of businesses taking those issues into account. There's much that we welcome in this draft article, including the reference to the worst forms of child labour as having its origins in ILA Convention number 182 on the worst forms of child labour, which is universally ratified and provides clear definitions. And that's particularly helpful for businesses and stakeholders who need reliable guidance when implementing due diligence measures. We also welcome the removal of the term child soldier in this draft. which is an outdated term and potentially harmful as it risks legitimising the involvement in children and hostilities and shifts responsibility away from those recruiting children. However, like Iceland, we query whether, for example, the additional wording at the end of the paragraph on termination is too wide and is not always the most human rights compliance response to a problem, and that is recognised in the OECD drafting that Iceland helpfully highlighted, nor is it clear that states are best placed to take that decision on termination. And finally, we would also prefer the original language of special attention in the drafting as a means of recognising the specific risks of conflict areas within an overarching human rights. Presidente-Relator [30:59]: Gracias al Reino Unido. South Africa · Representante [31:12]: Madrid. Afflicted areas, including gender based and sexual violence, the use of children, and forced child labor. These would include measures to identify, prevent, and address the risks of serious human rights abuses. So South Africa supports the proposals made by Egypt on the addition of business relationships of a transnational character, and the inclusion of situations of occupation in this article. We also look forward to receiving Palestine's written proposals, which we believe could further enhance protections under this article. Chair, joining Saudi Arabia and Brazil. We also consider that if appropriately worded, the text could address responsible disengagement, measures to prevent further harm and the preservation of access to remedies. This would prevent disengagement from becoming a means of avoiding responsibility for harm already caused. Thank you, Chair. Presidente-Relator [32:29]: Muchas gracias a Sudáfrica. algún otro Estado desea intervenir en este momento. Pakistán tiene la palabra. Pakistan · Representante [33:08]: The spirit in which you have presented this proposal for 16.3, including the need for addressing or mitigating the heightened human rights related risks of activities in conflict affected areas. Like Egypt, we would support a reference to situations of occupation, as well as to clarify that we are referring to business activities and relationships of a trust transnational character. Also, towards the last line, we do support the addition in principle. However, we are flexible on how Presidente-Relator [34:01]: Bien si no hay más pedidos de la palabra de los estados. Vamos a dar la palabra a los representantes de organizaciones de la sociedad civil y otros actores. relevantes. Cedo la palabra Franciscans International. Speaker 28 [34:27]: Microphone please. Representante [34:36]: Thank you Chair. This statement is on behalf of Franciscans International and the international service for human rights. We would like to propose some additional language to article 16.3. In the first sentence, we suggest adding and ongoing in recognition of the dynamic nature of conflicts and heightened risk present, it would read in part, states shall undertake special and ongoing measures. We also suggest language regarding how land may be impacted by or is central to conflict in sight. For example, CESCAR's general comment 26 and the 2024 ICJ advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel's occupation. After the sentence with language on forced and hazardous child labor, we suggest adding special attention should also be paid to the links between conflict, land and human rights abuses, including land dispossession, environmental harm, and other impacts that may also obstruct the right to self determination. We welcome language by the chair on the termination of business activities, and suggest also adding language to ensure that businesses do not enter into context where clear red lines already exist. We suggest amending as state parties shall also ensure that business enterprises shall not enter into and terminate their business activities and business relationships, depending on the stage. In such areas when human rights abuses cannot be prevented. This proposal includes the deletion of the phrase mitigation. We also support adding a reference to respect for international humanitarian law if article 16.5 is not maintained as is. We support language proposed by the state of Palestine in regard to the protection and meaningful participation of affected persons, including women, children, human rights defenders, and protected persons generally. Last, the aforementioned suggestions are also in consideration of the developments of article 1.8 and article six in particular. Thank you. Presidente-Relator [36:36]: Cedo la palabra a la Organización Internacional de Empleadores. IOE · Representante [36:45]: Thank you Chair. I speak on behalf of IOE and USCIB. We we recognize the critical importance of heightened human rights due diligence in conflict affected areas and of making clear what is expected of states and of business. We are, however, particularly concerned about the new requirements for states party to ensure that business enterprises terminate their business activities and business relationships, where human rights abuses cannot be prevented or mitigated. There is no standard for data mining for determining when that is the case. Such wording will create a de facto duty to disengage. We are failing to exit could itself give rise to claims. It could also be read as requiring companies to terminate joint ventures or other investment relationships. Furthermore, this depart from the UNGPs, which expect this engagement to be considered but do not mandate it. Under UNGP 19 ending a relationship must be weighted against the enterprise's leverage, the severity of the abuse, and whether existing would itself have adverse human rights consequences. A mandatory exit would encourage cut and run, rather than responsible engagement to the detriment of the communities that most need investment and jobs. In line with UNGP seven, states should instead help ensure that businesses operating in such areas receive adequate assistance. Lastly, we support referring to the worst forms of child labor as defined by ILO Convention number 192, which enjoys universal ratification. To termination requirement should be deleted and this provision aligned with the UN Guiding Principle. Thank you. Presidente-Relator [38:29]: Muchas gracias cedo la palabra a ESCR. ESCRNet · Representante [38:37]: Chair, I speak on behalf of ESCRNet and FN International. On article 163 related to the implementation of the LBI in conflict affected areas, we strongly support the inclusion in the chair's suggested redrafting of the requirement to terminate business activities and relationships in areas where abuses and, violations cannot be prevented. We also suggest adding language that ensures the duty not to initiate such activities in conflict affected areas when human rights abuses and violations. cannot be prevented, or when a risk of human rights abuses or violations is identified prior to the implementation of such activities. We also strongly support the addition of business relationships in this article. We know the continued use of the term mitigation in the last sentence of Article 163, which is problematic. Human rights abuses or violations once having occurred, must only be remedied and cannot be mitigated. Only risks can be mitigated. We thus suggest deleting the terms, and I quote, or mitigated, end of quote, from the last sentence. of Article 16.3. In addition, Article 16.3, and in particular, the special measures that states must take in case of business activities in conflict affected areas remain remains vague. We note that the chair has flagged the absence of a reference to IHL in this article and suggests its inclusion, as many delegations have suggested, as it's essential to framing the measures that should be taken by states in these contexts. Special measures regarding business activities in conflict affected areas must be precise and require careful conflict sensitive analysis of how they interact with other. provisions, in particular with Article five, six, seven, and eight. For instance, the requirement to conduct enhanced human rights due diligence in conflict affected areas, including in prevention obligations, under Article 64 G of the third revised draft was crucial, and such an obligation should be clearly reintegrated in the text. This would be in line with existing legal frameworks that include heightened human rights due diligence obligations related to conflict and high risk settings. Finally, given the serious risk of gross human rights abuses and violations in conflict affected areas, article eight, on legal liability should be reviewed to ensure effective deterrence and accountability where both states and corporations involved in business activities in conflict affected areas, including in situations of occupation, cause or contribute to serious violations of international law, including international criminal law, NIHL. Thank you. Presidente-Relator [41:35]: Association. Representante [41:42]: Good afternoon. Thank you. and electro power consortium against forced labor in electronic industry. As well as electronic industrial employee workers union in the northern region in Malaysia, EIEU as a member. Electoral power partners call for Article 16 address pressure that put workers as raised and abuse and workers force workers in the value change. For migrant workers in Malaysia, their rights to leave a job on paper is not insure. workers may still own money from recruitment fees. There there many depend on their employer for housing. There are many fare lose their right to stay in the country. The pressure can be made. It's very hard to leave the job. Since the contracts do not match the workers is feel say no to unsafe work or leave on the employer who abuse them. When states put this arrangement into particular, they must address their pressure to stop workers from making for free choice to take the or leave job. Workers must be free to join trade unions and act together with stake better. Workers conditions. They must be able to report to abuse without fair bring bring push punishment or lose their job. Trade unions must have a clear rule to make their right to work particular. We must be able to help workers speak up and get support when our rights abuse. Therefore, we ask expedite include also forced labor in defined by the ILO indicated for forced labor outside for for the mentioned conflict affected area article 16.3 Thank you Chair. CIDSE · Representante [44:33]: Thank you Mr. Chair. I'm speaking on behalf of Citse and its member organizations, Manus Unidas, Miserio, CCVD, Terres Solidaire, Brülich Delen, Trocair, Fastnaxion, Dickey Austria, and Kafut. We welcome the strengthening of Article 16.3, particularly the recognition of heightened risks in conflict affected areas, including gender based and sexual violence, the recruitment and use of children, and the worst forms of child labor. We greatly welcome the requirement to terminate business activities and relationships where abuses cannot be prevented. We would also fully support an explicit reference to respect for international humanitarian law, as suggested by several states. However, we believe the reference to human rights abuses being mitigated should be changed to ended, because mitigation should not become an alternative to preventing abuses and addressing their root causes. Furthermore, we have concerns related to the scope of this protection. We would rather support a cross cutting principle requiring states to address the heightened and differentiated risks faced by individuals and communities in vulnerable or high risk situations throughout. the implementation of the LBI, in line with the language of preamble paragraph 14. And this would help ensure a consistent approach to the protection of specific groups across its different provisions. including, for example, barriers faced by persons or groups in a situation of vulnerability or marginalization in accessing the International Fund for Victims under Article 15.7, which was discussed earlier. So we therefore encourage states to retain the important safeguards proposed here while ensuring that they apply beyond conflict affected areas and are not limited to the specific risks enumerated in this provision. Thank you Chair. Presidente-Relator [46:28]: Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra International Transport Workers Federation. ITF · Representante [46:40]: Thank you Chair. I speak on behalf of the global labor movement. With respect to this proposal we in the labor movement place particular importance on the obligations set out in Article 16.3, concerning the conduct of business activities in conflict affected areas and its direct impact on workers. We welcome the suggested drafting changes which address a number of our concerns. References to heightened risk and the introduction of language and responsible exit are very significant improvements to the text. But as highlighted by others, the element of response responsibility should be introduced as a qualifying factor in reference to disengagement. And similarly, we have we share the views of others in relation to the request to delete the reference to. mitigation in that final sentence. Chair, we read the reference to heightened risk here, as read against Article six, as necessarily requiring enhanced due diligence, to effectively ensure that business enterprises effectively identify, prevent and mitigate such elevated risk. Nevertheless, we would support the State of Palestine's suggestion for an explicit reference to the state obligation to ensure business enterprises can conduct enhanced due diligence in these contexts. And sharing support of your redraft, we would emphasize that responsible contracting, purchasing, and disengagement practices are essential to safeguard workers and their livelihoods throughout supply chains, especially in the most challenging settings. Indeed, responsible disengagement becomes critical where conducting where even conducting enhanced due diligence is simply insufficient in contexts where the rule of law has collapsed. Additionally, we would continue to urge the working group to include a reference to violations of international humanitarian law since, as noted in your paper, the article focuses on conduct that may amount to international crimes. As to the placement of the content of this provision in the relevant article, articles concerning due diligence, we are indifferent to that point. And finally, Chair, we would also welcome the integration of a reference of forced displacement of peoples as a clear example of a situation to which special attention should be given. I thank you. Presidente-Relator [49:04]: Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra a International Federation for Human Rights. FIDH · Representante [49:12]: I make this statement on behalf of the International and International Federation of Human Rights. The suggested new text improves on the previous text in several respects. It clarifies who is responsible for taking action and specifies the action that is required. And it extends the scope of the obligation to business relationships rather than limiting it to business activities. However, the provision remains limited in scope and inadequate to effectively address the risk of serious human rights abuses in conflict affected areas. In particular, the special measures state parties are expected to take appear to be limited to requiring human rights due diligence. There is little that is special about this measure, as it amounts to no more than what state parties are already required to put in place across the board under Article. six. States can take a range of other measures to prevent serious human rights abuses in conflict affected areas, such as banning certain activities or relationships outright, or prohibiting the export or import of certain products or services, as expressed by Palestine and Cuba earlier. A broader formulation capable of capturing the full range of preventive measures that states may take in this context should therefore be adopted. As regards the specific human rights due diligence requirement, this should be framed as enhanced due diligence as has been suggested now by many parties. Enhanced due diligence is a well established concept in business and human rights literature and practice, and would better reflect the nature and scope of measures that are necessary to effectively identify and address the heightened risk risks associated with operating in conflict affected areas. The proposed new text does not refer to international humanitarian law, despite its relevance as an international normative framework applicable to business conduct in situations of armed conflict and occupation. It is both appropriate and necessary for the effective prevention of gross human rights abuses in these contexts, such as gender based and sexual violence, and the recruitment and use of children by armed forces or armed groups for state parties to expressly require business enterprises to respect the applicable rules of international humanitarian law. Finally, while we welcome the addition of a final sentence addressing instances in which business activities or relationships should be terminated, we recommend reformulating this phrase slightly, in line with the recommendations by Palestine and Cuba and a few other delegates, to make clear that termination is expected whenever abuses cannot be prevented or ended and not also mitigated. Referring to mitigation of abuses suggests that business enterprises may continue operating despite ongoing or foreseeable serious harm, provided that they can demonstrate that the severity or likelihood of the abuses has been reduced to some extent. In a context in which abuses are, highly likely to occur or to be severe, any remaining abuses are still likely to be very serious. The elimination of the phrase abuses cannot be mitigated, could be balanced out by introducing a responsible exit standard, requiring businesses to consider and address the potential adverse human rights impacts that their withdrawal may cause or contribute to. So with these considerations in mind, a possible broader formulation that still captures all forms of violence and risks facing vulnerable individuals and populations living in conflict affected areas or situations of occupation, could read as follows. States State parties shall take all appropriate measures to prevent or mitigate the risk of serious human rights abuses in the context of business activities and relationships in conflict affected areas, paying particular attention to the risk of serious human rights, abuses facing vulnerable individuals and populations. Such measures shall include, but not be limited to requiring business enterprises to undertake enhanced environmental and human rights due diligence and to respect international humanitarian law. State parties shall ensure that business enterprises are required to terminate their business activities and relationships where human rights abuses cannot be prevented or ended, or where risks are too serious and potential harms irreparable by undertaking a responsible exit that takes into account the potential adverse impacts of termination on other human rights. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Presidente-Relator [53:45]: Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra a Global Forum for the Defense of the Less Privileged. Representante [53:56]: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. This will also be my first intervention of this session. So let me start off by first congratulating you on your reelection as chair of this working group. We wish to welcome proposal seven and support efforts to strengthen the effective implementation of the LBI. However, to take into account that the core value of this instrument lies not only in the commitments states make, but in the impacting protection it provides to victims of business related human rights abuses. States have a responsibility to ensure that human rights are respected, that violations are prevented, and that victims have access to justice, effective remedies, and reparations. These protections must not remain simply words on pieces of paper. They must lead to meaningful. action. We therefore recommend maintaining clear and practical obligations for states while respecting applicable international law and ensuring that no gaps and protections are created. Notably, accountability is essential. Victims must not be left without justice simply because the violations they experience are linked to corporate power or economic interests. For these reasons, we support Proposal seven and encourage states to ensure that its wording remains strong, effective and focused on protecting human rights. The success of this instrument should be measured not only by what states agree upon, but by how effectively it protects the people who need it most. I thank you. Presidente-Relator [55:11]: Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra Institute for Policy Studies. IPS · Representante [55:25]: Thank you Chair. I speak on behalf of the Institute for Policy Studies and IT for Change, members of the global campaign. We support the objective of Article 16.3, which requires states to take special measures in cases of business activities and business relationships in conflict affected areas, including areas under occupation, to ensure that enterprises identify and prevent heightened human rights related risks. We support Palestine's additions and propose a further addition to the provision. That state parties should also be required to pay special attention to the use of digital technologies and their integration into military and surveillance systems in conflict affected areas. The Digital technologies are increasingly embedded in the conduct of armed conflict, including through biometric identification, mass surveillance, and AI assisted logistical and targeting systems. These technologies developed and supplied by transnational corporations have played a key role in facilitating violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in recent years. The ongoing genocide in Palestine makes the urgency of this particularly, clear. In her 2025 report to the Human Rights Council, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory has documented how technology corporations have supplied cloud computing, AI, and surveillance technologies that support Israel's military military operations in Palestine. These concerns also extend beyond Palestine. Across conflict affected areas in the world, the growing integration of commercially developed digital technologies into military and security operations is creating new avenues for human rights violations. This makes it imperative that the treaty addresses the responsibilities of the corporations developing and supplying these systems. We therefore propose that article 16.3 expressly requires states to pay special attention to the provision and use of digital technologies in conflict affected areas and their integration into military and. surveillance systems. Thank you. Presidente-Relator [57:28]: Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra a DKA Austria. DKA · Representante [57:34]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I speak and behalf of DK Austria, ECPAT International, and the human rights clinics of UFMG and Puki Paraná. We support the two's proposals on Article 16.3, especially regarding the removal of soldiers after children, also supported by Brazil, Uruguay and United Kingdom, which broadens the scope of protection to all children in conflict affected areas. We suggest inserting at the end of the first phrase in the seventh line the following, quote, and any practice that compromises the safety development of dignity of children, end quote. This addition ensures broader coverage of harmful practices that may not fall neatly within existing categories, but nevertheless pose serious risks to children's rights. I thank you. Presidente-Relator [58:28]: Muchas gracias Este fue el último orador de la lista Agradezco a todos los estados y a los representantes de la sociedad civil que han participado en este intercambio así como otros actores relevantes Ahora pasamos a considerar la última propuesta correspondiente al grupo de artículos 12 a 24 la cual se refiere específicamente al artículo 16 16.6 reformulado con el fin de clarificar el lenguaje de esa disposición El texto de este párrafo dispone que los estados partes protejan las políticas públicas y los procesos de toma de decisiones frente a la influencia política indebida de actores empresariales Al respecto Durante la 11.ª sesión algunas delegaciones propusieron que se considere una mayor precisión de la expresión influencia indebida Mientras que otras delegaciones apoyaron mantenerlo y o aclararlo mediante referencias a los conflictos de interés O a los intereses comerciales y otros intereses creados intereses creados Asimismo se subrayó la importancia de proteger la integridad de los procesos de decisión pública sin excluir la participación transparente y regulada del sector privado Durante las consultas temáticas interseccionales varias delegaciones y numerosas organizaciones Volvieron a apoyar que se mantenga esta disposición y solicitaron mayor claridad sobre la manera en que los marcos legislativos podrían abordar esta cuestión por ejemplo mediante medidas de transparencia buena gobernanza y divulgación de información Por ello para la reformulación de esta disposición se tuvo en cuenta entre otros elementos los informes del grupo de trabajo sobre las empresas y los derechos humanos aplicables a esta cuestión Y se tuvo presente el artículo 5.3 del convenio marco de la OMS para el control del tabaco cuya formulación sobre los intereses comerciales y otros intereses crea creados podría servir de referencia a los estados al considerar el alcance de la expresión indebida Sobre esa base la reformulación sugerida contiene dos elementos Precisa de manera ejemplificativa que se entiende por espacios de toma de decisiones Mencionando su sistema judiciales y otros sistemas judiciales y órganos reguladores y gubernamentales Añade una segunda frase según la cual para dar efecto a esta disposición los Estados partes podrán adoptar las medidas que consideren necesarias incluidas las de carácter legislativo administrativo e e institucional Fin de la cita Esta formulación otorga una connotación más estructurada a los medios de protección preservando al mismo tiempo el margen de los estados para determinarlos Con esta introducción ofrezco la palabra en primer lugar a los estados que deseen realizar intervenciones con comentarios a la propuesta ocho de reformulación del artículo 16.6 State of Palestine · Representante [1:03:01]: Thank you excellency Chair We welcome you. that's your specification of judicial systems and regulatory bodies, but quote unquote May adopt such measures as they may deem necessary, and the quote makes the provision optional. The words, quote, state parties may adopt such measures as they deem are necessary, and of quote, should be replaced with, quote, state parties shall adopt such measures as are necessary, end of quote. Moreover, the wording under political influence is bigger than the established standard of Article 5.3 of the WHO framework on convention on tobacco control, which that chair cites. The inclusion of the word undue might be misunderstood to mean that cooperations could legitimately exert political influence on public decision making processes. There is a fundamental conflict of interest there. What is needed is an objective firewall against commercial and other vested interests and an obligation that is binding, not discretionary. We propose therefore to replace under political influence with influence. Thank you chair. Presidente-Relator [1:04:46]: Muchas gracias al estado de Palestina Costa Rica tiene la Costa Rica · Representante [1:04:57]: Palabra, gracias señor presidente. Y totalmente consciente de parte de mi delegación de la metodología que hemos adoptado y sabedor de que más adelante en la semana habrá un espacio para referirme a los artículos. que no contienen propuestas de la presidencia, ruego el perdón para referirme a uno de ellos, ya que mi delegación no podrá estar presente el jueves por la tarde. Es una mención muy rápida en el artículo 16.8. 16.5, donde consideramos muy pertinente incluir una referencia expresa al derecho internacional ambiental, junto con el derecho internacional de los derechos humanos y el derecho internacional humanitario para reflejar de manera más completa el marco jurídico internacional relevante para la aplicación e interpretación del futuro instrumento. Ahora sí, sobre el artículo 16.6, Costa Rica acoge favorablemente que el texto aborde los conflictos de interés y la influencia indebida de los actores empresariales en los espacios de formulación de políticas. consideramos importante que la disposición tenga un carácter suficiente claro y efectivo. De ahí que agradecemos la propuesta de la presidencia. En este sentido también creemos que podríamos fortalecer la redacción de la última frase, sustituyendo la palabra may por should o preferiblemente shall, de manera que la obligación prevista no quede formulada únicamente en términos términos discrecionales Eso sería señor presidente, muchas gracias. Presidente-Relator [1:06:42]: Muchas gracias a Costa Rica la Unión Europea tiene la palabra. EU · Representante [1:06:55]: Article 16.6 we would appreciate clarification of what constitutes undue political influence and how in contrast legitimate stakeholder participation would be preserved. If maintained, it would be worthwhile considering a more general formulation that addresses undue influence, irrespective of its source, without singling out business. We would also appreciate clarification of the added value of the proposed new second sentence, which appears to give states a discretion that they already have. Presidente-Relator [1:07:35]: Muchas gracias a la Unión Europea. Egipto tiene la palabra. Egypt · Representante [1:07:51]: Thank you Mr. chair and sincere thanks for the explanation you made and the way you approached this article. We welcome the expansion on describing what exactly is their decision making spaces. And also we generally welcome the addition of the last sentence. On On on the reference to the undue political influence, allow me to expand if I may. It's important for us to distinguish clearly between the respective roles and mandates of transnational corporations and governments. Corporations and businesses are primarily established to generate economic value, maximise financial returns, and enhance shareholder interests. Their success is generally measured through financial indicators such as profitability, return on investment and market performance. Governments, by contrast, carry a fundamentally different responsibility. Their mandate is not profit generation, but the provision of public services, goods and protection of rights. and maintenance of security and social order and cohesion. Unlike businesses, government must balance a wide range of competing social economic and political priorities, ensuring that the needs of all members of the societies are considered particularly the most vulnerable. Saying that the governments and transnational corporations operate according to a distinct objective, objectives accountability frameworks and measures of success. Recognizing this distinction give give the wording of undue political influence. For us it creates a lot of vagueness and uncertainty. And it might have a misleading interpretation that interfering there is an undue influence and there is a due political influence. And we suggest changing this reference and replacing it with the phrase that says from commercial, comma, financial, and other vested interests. So to make the clear distinction between the mandate and the priorities of transnational corporations and governments clear, we we we should consider the removal of the changing of the undue political influence to commercial financial and other vested interests. Thank you Mr. Chair. Presidente-Relator [1:10:23]: Muchas gracias a Egipto Islandia tiene la palabra. Iceland · Representante [1:10:38]: Thank you Chair. Iceland attaches importance to protecting public decision making from undue influence and it is an essential condition for the effective implementation of this instrument. We also recognize that business enterprises have a legitimate role to play in policymaking, provided that their participation is transparent and responsible. And in our view, transparency is what gives real content to the notion of undue influence. In light of that, we suggest adding a reference to this article. Perhaps towards the end of the paragraph, where the provision is given operational content by explicitly mentioning transparency and disclosure measures as a part of the process to give effect to this provision. Thank you. Presidente-Relator [1:11:41]: Gracias a Islândia. Uruguay tiene la palabra. Uruguay · Representante [1:11:44]: Gracias, señor presidente relator. Entendemos importante preservar la integridad, independencia y transparencia de los procesos públicos de toma de decisiones incluidos los sistemas judiciales y los organismos regulatorios y gobernamentales. Y, en ese sentido, poderíamos acompañar la propuesta del presidente relator. En tanto entendemos contribuye a precisar los hábitos comprados por esta protección. Al mismo tiempo, consideramos pertinente continuar examinando el alcance del término indebido, teniendo en cuenta la necesidad de distinguir entre la participación legítima de las, empresas y otros actores en los procesos de formulación de políticas públicas y aquellas formas de influencia que pueden comprometer la independencia o integridad de las decisiones públicas. En ese marco, permanecemos abiertos a considerar formaciones gracias Presidente-Relator [1:12:44]: Muchas gracias al Uruguay. Saudi Arabia · Representante [1:12:47]: العربية السعوديه شكرا سيدي الرئيس فيما يخص المقترحات بشان الماده. 16.6 تؤكد المملكة أن تنفيذ أحكام هذا الصك ينبغي أن يتم بما يتوافق مع النظم القانونية الوطنية لكل دولة، مع مراعاة خصوصياتها المؤسسة المؤسسية والتنظيمية. وترحب المملكة بما تضمنته الصياغة المقترحة من ترك تحديد التدابير اللازمة لتقدير الدول الأطراف. غير أن المملكة تلاحظ أن مفهوم التأثير غير المشروع لم يعرف، وهو ما أشارت إليه خلفية مقترح الرئيس المقرر ذاتها حين دعت الدول إلى النظر في المقصود بهذا الوصف، ومن شأن ترك هذا المفهوم دون ضابط أن يفتح المجال لتفسيرات متباينة، قد تطال المشاركة المشروعة لمؤسسات الأعمال في صنع السياسات العامة. وعليه تقترح المملكة إضافة عبارة وفقا لنظمها القانونية الداخلية إلى الإلتزام الأساسي الوارد في الفقرة. وإضافة عبارة تنص على عدم الإخلال بالمشاركة المشروعة لمؤسسات الأعمال في عمليات التشاور التي تجرى وفقا للقانون الوطني الداخلي، وذلك إتفاقا مع ما أكده الفريق العامل المعني بمسألة حقوق الإنسان والشركات عبر الوطنية، وغيرها من مؤسسات الأعمال في تقريره إيه سلاش 77 سلاش 201. الذي استشهدت به الوثيقة المتضمنة مقترحات الرئيس المقرر من أن للقطاع الخاص إلى جانب أصحاب المصلحة الآخرين، الحق في المشاركة في صنع السياسات شريطة أن تتم هذه المشاركة بشفافية ومسؤولية وشكرا للسيد الرئيس. Presidente-Relator [1:15:09]: Muchas gracias a Arabia Saudita. Pakistán tiene la palabra. Pakistan · Representante [1:15:22]: Mr. Chair rapporteur and also our thanks for the comprehensive presentation. It helps us understand how you've approached this. We see article 16.6. as seeking to address a genuine problem. If states ought to regulate transnational corporate conduct effectively, their regulatory processes must be protected from capture by the entities that they seek to regulate. Nevertheless, we do see three concerns with the current formulation. Firstly, the term businesses should be limited to transnational corporations and other enterprises of a transnational character, consistent with the position my delegation has taken in other articles. Second, the standard undue political influence is is not a term of art. And as as the conference room paper itself acknowledges, We noted the reference to the framework convention on tobacco control, which offers a model that emphasizes transparency, disclosure of interests, and conflict of interest management. And we see value potentially in drawing on that. precedent. And third, Chair, the reference to judicial systems goes beyond the legally binding instruments mandate. Judicial independence, of course, remains essential, but its protection is addressed through other instruments and processes. The provision in 16.6 should focus on the executive and regulatory functions that are directly implicated by corporate lobbying. And While we do not have a textual suggestion here, we we think that if these three elements could be addressed, we may be able to come up with language that Pakistan could look at favorably. Thank you. Presidente-Relator [1:17:07]: Muchas gracias a Pakistán. El estado de Qatar tiene la palabra. Qatar · Representante [1:17:19]: Thank you, Chair. We align ourselves with the views of Saudi Arabia and wish to emphasize the importance of ensuring that the implementation of the instrument remains consistent, with domestic legal frameworks and institutional arrangements of states. We further consider that the concept of undue political influence would benefit from greater clarity, to avoid divergent interpretations. In this regard, it is important to ensure that legitimate engagement by businesses or business enterprises in policymaking and consultation processes is not inadvertently restricted while maintaining the integrity and and objectives of the instrument. And finally, it is difficult to envisage the circumstances in which a claim could be brought on the basis of this clause, which raises questions as to its practical application and enforceability. Thank you. Presidente-Relator [1:18:33]: Muchas gracias al estado de Catar, el Reino Unido tiene la palabra. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland · Representante [1:18:43]: We reserve our position on this article pending further instructions as a preliminary observation as the EU, Uruguay, Saudi Arabia, and others have said, it would be helpful to understand the definition of undue influence, given the legitimate role of business alongside other stakeholders in decision making. Perhaps the suggestion on transparency from Iceland could assist here and some variation of Saudi Arabia's reference to without prejudice language might also assist to leave room for legitimate engagement. Like the EU, we also query why businesses are singled out in the drafting, and we would be unlikely to accept language that singles out TNCs specifically. We also like the EU query what the final line adds to. Presidente-Relator [1:19:29]: Muchas gracias al Reino Unido. Algún otro estado desea intervenir en este momento? Bien, no parece ser el caso. Pasamos entonces a los representantes de la sociedad civil y otros actores relevantes. Cedo la palabra a la Organización Internacional de Empleadores. IOE · Representante [1:20:13]: Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of IOE and USCIB. We are not supportive of this proposal. Article 1625. 16.6 already sought to protect vague decision making spaces from an equally vague and geopolitical influence by businesses. The redrafting does not result this. It extends the provision to to judicial systems and regulatory and governmental bodies and invite states to adopt legislative, administrative, and institutional measures while still leaving its key term undefined. As the chair's own background acknowledged, background acknowledges, the question of what is understood by andu remains open. We remain particularly concerned that this provision singles out business departing from the UNGPs and disregarding the UN Working Group on Business and human rights recognitions, quoted in the quoted in the background, that the private sector, alongside other stakeholders, has a right to participate in policymaking. We fully share the working group's emphasis on transparent and responsible participation, a principle that must apply equally to all stakeholders. Targeting businesses, regardless of their size, is stigmatizing and undermines the inclusive multi stakeholder approach of the guiding principle. guiding principles. Involving companies and employer and business membership organization helps ensure that policies are effective, proportionate, and evidence based. And and excluding them will just speak freedom of expression and association, as preserved in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, NILO Convention number 87. This provision also departs from the tried and tested tripartite model of the ILO, where employers workers and governments share policy together. We continue to call for the deletion of this provision. Thank you. Presidente-Relator [1:22:06]: Muchas gracias Cedo la palabra palabra a Global Forum for the Defense of the Less Privileged. Representante [1:22:18]: We wish to retract our statement. Thank you. Presidente-Relator [1:22:21]: Muchas gracias. Cedo La palabra Asociacion Sudwind. Representante [1:22:33]: I'm speaking on behalf of Association Südwind and the Treaty Alliance Austria. We have a specific comment on proposal eight. Regarding the production of public policies and decision making spaces, the final EU C60D cannot be a blueprint for the UN Treaty. Massive lobbying by multinational oil companies was documented by the Dutch NGO Somo. We need to ensure that such lobbying never happens again. At EU level, these companies lobbied under the name of the so called competitiveness roundtable to conceal that these demands came from large TNCs. The result is a CCD that contains massive lawfuls. Furthermore, several statements from the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights, as well as from the Office of the United Nations, High Commissioner for Human Rights, warned of the negative consequences of the omnibus package for the effectiveness of the EU CCD. We need a strong UN mining treaty that protects human rights and the environment along the entire value chain, and it ensures effective access to justice for affected people. Against this background, we need to ensure that the UN Treaty includes the strongest possible provision to protect the process. We support taking up the chair's proposal to consider the language of the World Health Organization framework convention on tobacco control. Article 16.6 should therefore read as follows. State parties shall protect the public policies and decision making spaces from interference and influence from commercial and other wasted interests. Thank you. Presidente-Relator [1:24:18]: Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra a International Transport Workers Federation. ITF · Representante [1:24:30]: Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the global labour movement. In relation to this proposal, we can support the drafting changes intended to clarify the language and the provision. which is effectively to protect public policy and decision making spaces from corporate from corporate capture. This provision does not speak to, say, tripartite social dialogue on policy or legitimate consultation with the social partners, which are all aspects that we engage in as trade unions at all levels. Chair, as stated previously for the trade union movement, it is essential to ensure that corporations are not allowed to weaponize private profit to unduly influence public policy. These may be the same corporations that benefit financially by continuing to abuse trade union and human rights, for example. Such influence essentially undermines democracy. Chair, we are open to the suggestion of clarifying the term undue and to also consider language in Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on tobacco control, save perhaps for the reference in that provision to national law, which we do not think is appropriate in the context of the LBI. I thank you. Presidente-Relator [1:25:48]: Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra a Citse. CIDSE · Representante [1:25:58]: Organizations, Manos Unidas, Miserios, SFD Solidaire, Brotherly Delen, Trucker, Fast and Action, and Kafod. We greatly appreciate the chair rapporteur's proposal under article 16.6 to protect public policies and decision making spaces, including judicial regulatory and governmental bodies from undue political influenced by businesses. We consider this an important safeguard for the integrity and independence of public decision making. We nevertheless encourage further strengthening of the provision by explicitly referring to interference and influenced by commercial and other vested interests, as proposed by Palestine and the Ligan Experts known paper presented during the 11th session. And by adding an explicit reference to conflicts of interest in line with Colombia's suggestion. It is an established fact that many TNCs are richer and more powerful than the majority of states. We have seen in the countries where our partners work, that commercial interests regularly interfere with public decision making processes to enhance their own profits, even when they come at a cost of negative human rights and environmental impacts. In this context, language such as the proposed, that proposed represents a minimum standard. These additions would provide a clearer and more comprehensive safeguard against situations in which commercial or other vested interests may improperly interfere with public institutions on influence decisions that should be taken in the public interest. I thank you. Presidente-Relator [1:27:28]: Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra Representante [1:27:40]: Thank you Mr. Chairperson. We strongly oppose reference to legitimate engagement of business as it is not relevant to the purpose of this article. We remind state delegates, that corporations have no rights under international law, and absolutely have no right to influence how this instrument will be implemented, as there is a clear conflict of interest in this regard. Article 16.6 is an important provision to prevent corporate capture. However, its wording is limited by the specific reference to undue political influence by businesses, which could be narrowly interpreted. We therefore suggest deleting the terms undue political and keeping the reference to influence in general. so that it would include political but also other forms of influence. We also support changing the word may to shall to clarify that stopping corporate influence is an obligation As mentioned by the delegate from Costa Rica. Another proposal would be to use existing agreed language based on Article 5.3 of the WHO framework on convention on tobacco controls in force since 2005 and which was suggested by the state of palestine and representatives of the labour movement. such a proposal could read as follows. 16.6 in implementing this legally binding instrument state parties shall protect public policies and decision making spaces from the interference and influence of commercial and other vested interests. This approach would serve to promote consistency across international legal instruments, as well as reinforce the obligation of states to legislate in alignment with obligations under. international human rights law. We have seen the consequences of allowing corporations to influence public decision making time and again. In the climate crisis, fossil fuel companies shape and block. very decisions meant to regulate their activities and address the environmental harm they cause. This is a fundamental conflict of interest. Those causing fuelling or profiting from environmental destruction and human rights violations cannot be allowed to write the rules meant to stop them. Finally, as suggested by Costa Rica, we would like to support the inclusion of international environmental law in 16.5. Thank you very much. Mr. president my name is erika mendes i Am from justice ambientale in mozambique and we are part of the global campaign and also of the international movement of people affected by dams and the climate crisis. This international movement was launched last year in Belém, Brazil. Across the globe, affected communities are bearing the brunt of the multiple crises we are facing. And all of these crises are directly related to the overwhelming and unchecked power of powerful corporations, whose only interests are profits for their shareholders. We need to speak about the elephant in the room. Corporate capture occurs when corporations are granted influence over decision making processes, allowing them to shape public policies and legal frameworks in ways that serve their own interests, prioritising profits over people's lives. It not only undermines democratic governance but also perpetuates impunity for human rights violations and obstructs the development of legal frameworks genuinely grounded in. the public interest, human rights and social justice. Corporate capture allows corporations to shape, dilute or even block the adoption of rules intended to regulate them. It is like allowing students to decide how their own exams should be graded. Those who are supposed to be held accountable are given the power to determine the standards by which they are judged. We have seen a striking example of corporate capture at the EU level, that is currently conducting waves of deregulation where corporate lobbying, under the guise of simplification, has led to the significant weakening of the CS due diligence directive. Human rights safeguards have been diluted in the name of reducing the regulatory burden on powerful corporations with enormous resources. In my continent, across Africa, corporations actively prevent states from passing progressive. environmental, climate or labour legislation, which is often disguised as efforts to improve our ease of doing business index, to please neocolonial actors such as the World Bank. Corporate capture also permeates to put it diplomatically the wto and the un. We also heard the nonsensical statement that there is no need for an lbi, since there are no legal gaps in labour rights. and human rights enforcement at the national level, and that the judicial systems are working. For these reasons, we strongly advocate for the inclusion of strong provisions throughout the treaty to prevent and address corporate capture, particularly in article 16.6. This includes deleting language about undue political influence in 16.6 and broadening it to encompass corporate influence generally. The words undue political should be deleted. It allows corporate actors to present aggressive lobbying as a legitimate form of participation, despite the fundamental conflict of interest that precludes corporate political influence. clear and objective safeguards against business and other vested interests are needed along with the binding obligations. Therefore we propose the following wording 60.6 in implementing this LBI, state parties shall protect public policies and decision making spaces such as their judicial systems and regulatory and governmental bodies from influenced by businesses. To give effect to this provision, state parties shall adopt such measures. as necessary, including those of a legislative, administrative and institutional character. States, in particular global south states, need to use this opportunity presented by these negotiations to address this direct and systematic threat to their sovereignty and to their ability to govern in the public interest. I am afraid that what the EU calls legitimate stakeholders might be. those known in our countries as neo colonial corporate criminals. Thank you. DKA · Representante [1:34:41]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I speak on behalf Of DKA Austria Equipage International and the Human Rights Clinics of UFMG in Puc Paraná. We welcome the chair's proposal on Article 16.6, regarding the adoption of the necessary measures to clarify the wording and enhance legal certainty to improve implementation of the legally binding instrument. We also suggest adding a paragraph as follows, quote, Article 16.7, states bodies shall integrate environmental and climate considerations into all measures implementing this instrument recognizing the interdependence between a health environment and the enjoyment of human rights, unquote. This addition would reinforce the preventive the preventive and protective dimensions of the instrument, particularly regarding children and environmental harm in the context of business activities. It is also grounded in the recognition that a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a human right in itself and essential to the full enjoyment of children's rights, including the Rights to Life, Health, Education, and Development. I thank you. Presidente-Relator [1:35:53]: Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra al Consejo Indigenista Misionario. Representante [1:36:09]: Or stagnate in a given given standard on international domestic norms. It has direct negative impacts on the enjoyment of rights on the environment and climate. This is particularly relevant on the economic and political power of DNCs, frequently greater than host countries themselves. And this power to influence public policies enhancing the profits at the cost of rights. Corporate Corporate capture is a well-known phenomenon, but also this paragraph should be enhanced with precise language and safeguards. Moreover, the most adequate verb in this paragraph should be shall, since this paragraph does not deal with a policy option, but a positive obligation of states under international human rights law, while sedimented in treaties, case laws and sources. Thank you. Presidente-Relator [1:37:14]: De las propuestas de reformulación 1 a 8 de la presidencia relativas a los artículos 12 a 24. Agradezco a todos los estados, a los representantes de la sociedad civil y a los demás actores relevantes por sus valiosas contribuciones, de las cuales he tomado debida nota. Considero que se ha cumplido el objetivo planteado de propiciar un un intercambio sustantivo sobre los resultados de las consultas temáticas interseccionales relativos a estos artículos. Y sobre la identificación de posibles áreas de. convergencia. Continuando bajo el tema Cuatro del programa aprobado. Pasamos ahora al segmento titulado. Presentación del resumen de las consultas temáticas interseccionales sobre los artículos 1 a 3 y de las propuestas del presidente relator resultantes de ellas, seguida de un diálogo interactivo. Al igual que en el segmento dedicado a los artículos 12 a 24. Este segmento tiene un doble propósito. En primer lugar presentar formalmente ante este grupo de trabajo un breve resumen de los aspectos clave abordados durante la segunda y la tercera consultas temáticas interseccionales. Tal como se reflejan en el informe resumido de las consultas. Y en segundo lugar, presentar y contextualizar las 14 propuestas de la presidencia relatoría relativas a los artículos 1 a 3 contenidas en el anexo a dicho informe. las cuales serán igualmente proyectadas en pantalla y servirán de base para un diálogo informal, dinámico e interactivo. La segunda consulta temática celebrada el 9 de abril estuvo dedicada a los artículos dos sobre la declaración de propósito. Y tres sobre el ámbito. sobre el ámbito. La tercera, celebrada los días 28 y 29 de mayo, abordó el artículo I sobre definiciones el preámbulo y una visión general del texto y del camino a seguir. Al igual que en la primera consulta, cada discusión se inició con la presentación de un non paper preparado por la presidencia relatoria, con el apoyo de los expertos jurídicos, salvo en el caso del preámbulo, cuya discusión se basó directamente en las propuestas textuales presentadas por los Estados en sesiones anteriores. Permítanme referirme brevemente a los aspectos clave de estas dos consultas. En relación con el artículo dos. 2, un número importante de delegaciones y organizaciones subrayó la importancia de que la declaración de propósito ofrezca una base clara, equilibrada y eficaz para instrumento. Los intercambios se centraron entre otros aspectos en la distinción entre las obligaciones de los estados y las responsabilidades de las empresas. En la expresión asegurar el respeto y la realización en la referencia a la mitigación de los abusos y en los calificativos aplicables al acceso a la justicia. Respecto del artículo tres se expresaron distintas aproximaciones sobre el ámbito de aplicación del instrumento, limitarlo a las empresas transnacionales, o a las actividades de carácter transnacional. Abarcar de manera simple todas las actividades empresariales, o hacerlo manteniendo un énfasis particular particular en aquellas de carácter transnacional. Asimismo, se abordó la diferenciación en el cumplimiento de las obligaciones de prevención en particular respecto de las pequeñas y medianas medianas empresas. Además, se trató el ámbito de aplicación material del instrumento, incluida la cuestión de qué derecho derechos humanos abarca y su relación con las obligaciones convencionales de cada Estado. En cuanto al artículo 1, numerosas delegaciones y organizaciones destacaron que contar con definiciones es fundamental para garantizar la interpretación, la aplicación y eficacia del futuro instrumento. y solicitaron definiciones claras operativas y jurídicamente ciertas aplicables en distintos sistemas jurídicos. Entre otros aspectos, la interrelación entre las nociones de víctima, impacto adverso en los derechos humanos, abuso y reparación. Y la distinción entre abuso y violación de derechos humanos. Adicionalmente, se trató sobre el alcance de las actividades empresariales, de su carácter trans transnacional y de la relación empresarial. La relación entre la definición de debida diligencia en materia de derechos humanos, y el artículo seis sobre prevención, así como las definiciones de Organización de Integración Regional y de Agencias Estatales relevantes. En relación con el preámbulo, el cual, como ustedes conocen, sirve de contexto interpretativo general para las disposiciones sustantivas, se destacó la importancia de mantener una relación clara y coherente con dichas disposiciones, y se formularon comentarios sobre el marco normativo que sustenta el instrumento. La responsabilidad de las empresas de respetar los derechos humanos y su relación con las obligaciones de los Estados, así como las personas y grupos en situación de vulnerabilidad. Finalmente, al concluir la tercera consulta tuvo lugar un intercambio sobre la visión general del texto y el camino a seguir, en el que un número importante de delegaciones y organizaciones subrayaron la importancia de avanzar hacia un instrumento claro, coherente, jurídicamente preciso y aplicable. Que proteja eficazmente a las víctimas y refleje una mayor coherencia entre sus disposiciones. Volveremos sobre estos aspectos en el segmento dedicado a la visión general del texto y al camino a seguir. previsto en el programa de trabajo para el jueves por la tarde. Distinguidos delegados, distinguidos participantes, sobre la base de estas consultas temáticas, la presidencia relatoría ha presentado 14 propuestas de reformulación que examinaremos a continuación, las cuales se refieren a las diez definiciones del artículo uno, así como al artículo dos y a los tres párrafos del artículo tres. Estas propuestas al igual que las ocho propuestas relativas a los artículos 12 a 24 fueron preparadas bajo mi exclusiva responsabilidad, con la asistencia de los expertos jurídicos, y tienen la misma naturaleza que las anteriores. Es decir, no tienen un valor jurídico y no sustituyen al proyecto actualizado de instrumento jurídicamente vinculante con las propuestas textuales presentadas por los Estados durante las sesiones 9.ª, 10.ª y 11.ª. No obstante, quisiera destacar que varias de estas propuestas guardan una estrecha relación entre sí. Las definiciones de víctima, impacto adverso y abuso de derechos humanos siguen una lógica encadenada. Las actividades empresariales y relación empresarial se han reformulado de manera conjunta para evitar superposiciones. Y algunas propuestas plantean el traslado de contenidos a otros artículos, como la de debida diligencia y la de diferenciación en las obligaciones de prevención al artículo 6. o a la de o la de organización de integración regional al artículo. 19. Asimismo, las propuestas relativas a los artículos 3.1 y 3.3 ofrecen dos opciones de redacción cada una. Con el fin de facilitar la identificación de posibles convergencias en cuestiones que, como es sabido, han suscitado posiciones divergentes. Por otra parte, me permito recordar que el preámbulo ya fue objeto de negociación intergubernamental directa durante la 9.ª sesión, celebrada en octubre de 2023 y que, por su propia naturaleza, se trata de una parte del futuro instrumento que podrá consolidarse una vez que se haya avanzado en la redacción de sus disposiciones operativas a fin de asegurar su plena coherencia con ellas. Por esta razón, el documento de propuestas no contiene su sugerencias de reformulación del preámbulo. Y de conformidad con el programa de trabajo aprobado, no está previsto volver a abordarlo de manera específica en esta sesión. Sin embargo, tal como se anunció, esto no impide que aquellas delegaciones que así lo deseen puedan aprovechar 1/1 del segmento del jueves en la tarde para compartir sus propuestas u observaciones sobre el preámbulo o sobre cualquier otro artículo del texto. Siempre que estas no hayan sido previamente. presentadas en algunas de las sesiones regulares anteriores o en las consultas temáticas interseccionales. En consecuencia, al igual que ocurrió el lunes con los artículos 12 a 24. El énfasis principal de nuestro trabajo en este segmento se centrará en el diálogo interactivo sobre las propuestas de reformulación, relativas a los artículos 1 a 3. En cuanto a la metodología de este segmento, seguiremos la misma empleada para los artículos 12 a 24, para lo cual abriré, en primer lugar, el uso de la palabra para los Estados y luego los demás actores relevantes que así lo deseen. Formulen observaciones de carácter general sobre las consultas temáticas, el informe resumido y las propuestas. Posteriormente presentaré una por una las 14 propuestas de redacción alternativa las cuales serán presentadas en pantalla, proyectadas en pantalla, y ofreceré la palabra, en primer lugar, a los Estados y, a continuación, a los demás actores relevantes para un diálogo informal dinámico e interactivo. Al igual que el lunes no habrá una lista formal de oradores para este segmento, por lo cual invito a las delegaciones a solicitar la palabra levantando su pancarta. Recuerdo asimismo que, conforme a la práctica de este grupo de trabajo, cualquier delegación podrá, a través de la Presidencia Relatoría, formular preguntas puntuales a los expertos jurídicos cuya participación seguirá siendo objetiva, neutral e imparcial, con pleno respeto de la naturaleza intergubernamental de este proceso de negociación. Dicho esto, ofrezco la palabra a los Estados que deseen formular observaciones de carácter general sobre la segunda y la tercera consultas temáticas interseccionales, el informe resumido y las propuestas de reformulación relativas a. los artículos 1 a 3. Algún Estado desea hacer observaciones de carácter general? Federación de Rusia tiene la palabra. Russian Federation · Representante [1:51:31]: Поскольку это наше первое выступление на сессии, позвольте в первую очередь поздравить вас с переизбранием на должность председателя докладчика данной рабочей группы и заверить вас в нашей приверженности конструктивному диалогу. Господин председатель докладчик, Российская Федерация хотела бы подтвердить, что замечания и предложения нашей делегации к проекту юридически обязывающего документа о ТНК и других предприятиях в контексте прав человека сделанные ранее в ходе предыдущих сессий межправительственной рабочей группы, сохраняет актуальность. В части, касающейся предложений председателя по статьям 1.3 проекта, хотели бы поделиться с следующими соображениями. Любая дефиниция должна быть однозначной и выверенной с юридической точки зрения. Погоня за трендовыми, не имеющими правового определения термина, терминами и характеристиками потенциально снижает количество сторонников будущего инструмента ввиду высокой вероятности его несоответствия национальному законодательству государств и их соответствующим обязательствам по. международному праву. Кроме того, убеждены в императиве неукоснительного соблюдения МРГ своего мандата вопросах выработки проекта юридически обязывающего инструмента. В данном контексте напоминаем о нашей принципиальной позиции о распространении действия документа только на транснациональные компании и другие предприятия транснационального характера. В связи с этим, обращаем внимание на важность дальнейшего приведения текста к единообразию в плане использования соответствующей терминологии. В частности, выступаем за вторую опцию в предложениях председателя по статьям 3 и 3.1 и 3.3. Мы неоднократно подчеркивали, что категория домициль в отношении физических лиц характерна в большей степени для государств англосаксонской системы права. Предлагаем в определении жертвы вместо категории домициль использовать более универсальное словосочетание постоянное проживание. Определение терминов предпринимательская деятельность, и предпринимательские отношения включают ссылки на детальность на деятельность физических лиц. Не убеждены в верности такого подхода и в его соответствии мандату. МРГ. Очевидно, что правозащитные последствия деятельности ТНК с одной стороны и физического лица с другой несопоставимы по своему характеру. Ставить между ними знак равенства в одном документе было бы неправильно и контрпродуктивно. Тем более, что механизмы и возможности правового воздействия на физических и юридических лиц совершенно различны. В этой связи по прежнему полагаем необходимым исключить физических лиц из упомянутого определения. Удаление из текста термина международно признанные права человека, используемого в руководящих принципах ООН по бизнесу и правам человека и его замена на абстрактный права человека не способствует внесению правовой определенности, поскольку не очевидно, о каких именно правах человека идет речь. Все еще вызывает озабоченность включение в охват проекта прав, признанных по национальному праву. Их объем и содержание варьируется в различных правовых системах. Таким образом, в охват документа заведомо закладывается риск отсутствие единообразия в его применении, существенные различия в объеме обязательств государств участников. Возможные злоупотребления когда на основании законодательства одного государства против другого государства могут выдвигаться обвинения, нарушения на территории последнего прав, которые его законодательством не предусмотрены. и не признаны. Продолжаем выступать против формулировок содержание которых неоднозначно или излишне размыто. Не можем согласиться с использованием статьи статьях 1.9 и 2D таких характеристик, как учитывающий гендерный и возрастной фактор или аспект, учитывающий гендерный фактор или аспект. принимающий во внимание детские особенности, ставящий жертв во главу угла. Полагаем, что отсутствие четкого представления о содержании обозначенных юридических категорий создает риски неоднозначного толкования будущего документа, а также делает участие в нем многих государств, включая нашего, малореализуемым. Blame the внимание. Presidente-Relator [1:56:31]: Hacer comentarios de carácter general. No es el caso. Organizaciones de la sociedad civil y otros actores relevantes. Para comentarios de carácter general cedo la palabra a la Organización Internacional de Empleadores. IOE · Representante [1:57:06]: Thank you Chair. I speak jointly on behalf of IOE and USCIB. We thank the chair rapporteur, the legal experts and the secretariat for the summary report on the second and third thematic consultations. The report shows that after more than a decade, there is still no common understanding on the very foundation foundations of this instrument. Its definitions, its purpose, and its scope. They should prompt reflection, no further expansion. Chair, allow me to recall what the global business community considers essential for the way. forward, much of which is reflected in the report. On Article one, definitions must be clear, operational, and legally certain so that they can be applied across different legal systems, as many delegations called for. Terms such such as any relationship or other activity do not meet this test. Business relationships should be limited to those directly linked to a company's operations, products or, services, and due diligence should follow the UNGPs. On Article two, the distinction between state obligations and business responsibilities must be preserved, a point broadly supported during the consultations. it is the cornerstone of the guiding principles. On Article three, the instrument shall apply to all business activities on an equal footing domestic and transnational, including state owned enterprises, without imposing disproportionate burdens on SMEs. Its material scope should be limited to internationally recognized human rights binding on states in line with the consensual nature of international law, rather than rights lacking an agreed treaty definition. We urge you to ensure that the next draft builds on this common ground rather than moving further away from it. Thank you. Presidente-Relator [1:58:56]: Muchas gracias no hay más pedidos de la palabra Bien, antes de pasar a la consideración individual de las propuestas de reformulación de la presidencia relatoria relativa relativas a los artículos 1 a 3, haremos una pausa de unos cinco minutos. Se suspende la sesión. Distinguidos delegados, distinguidos participantes reanudamos la sesión. Pasaremos ahora. A la consideración individual de las propuestas de reformulación de la presidencia relatoria, relativas a los artículos 1 a 3, conforme a la metodología que describí anteriormente. Abordaremos, en primer lugar, la 9.ª propuesta relativa a la definición de víctima del artículo 1.º 1.1, la cual tiene por objetivo integrar propuestas textuales que alinean esta definición con los principios y directrices básicos sobre el derecho de la. las víctimas, de violaciones manifiestas de las normas internacionales de derechos humanos y de violaciones graves del derecho internacional humanitario, a interponer recursos y obtener reparaciones, aprobados por la Asamblea General en su Resolución 60/147 de 2005. Durante las consultas temáticas interseccionales se discutieron, entre otros aspectos, la referencia a las comunidades afectadas. La inclusión de las personas que sufren daños al interés intervenir para asistir a las víctimas, la mención de los actos u omisiones y la inclusión de los familiares inmediatos. Varias de delegaciones y organizaciones apoyaron referirse expresamente a las comunidades afectadas, por considerar que los daños colectivos no quedan adecuadamente reflejados en la expresión grupo de personas. Y otras subrayaron el carácter individual del daño. En cuanto a las personas que intervienen para asistir a las víctimas, se señaló la necesidad de un vínculo suficientemente claro con las actividades empresariales. Por su parte, los actos u omisiones ya se encontrarían comprendidos en la definición de abuso de derechos humanos del artículo 1.3. Con estos elementos, la presidencia y relatoría sugiere mantener los elementos de la definición con los siguientes dos ajustes. Primero, incorporar a las comunidades afectadas, junto a las personas o grupos de personas que hayan sufrido un abuso de derechos humanos en el contexto de actividades empresariales. 2. dos. Incluir, en consonancia con los principios y directrices básicos, a las personas que hayan sufrido daños, cito, al intervenir para prestar asistencia a víctimas en peligro o para impedir un abuso de derechos humanos en el contexto de actividades empresariales. Con esta introducción ofrezco la, palabra, en primer lugar, a los Estados que deseen realizar intervenciones con comentarios a la propuesta nueve de reformulación del artículo 1.1. el Consejo de Cooperación del Golfo tiene la palabra. GCC · Representante [2:14:17]: شكرا سيد الرئيس، بداية تجدد دول المجلس التأكيد على ملاحظاتها ومقترحاتها السابقة وتعرب عن قلقها إزاء عدم انعكاسها بصورة كافية في الصياغات الجديدة المقترحة التي لا يزال بعضها يثير إشكاليات جوهرية تتعلق بنطاق الصك ومصادر الالتزام والمسؤولية القانونية. وفيما يتعلق بتعريف، الضحية في الفقرة 1.1 نؤكد ضرورة توضيح أن المقصود هو الشخص الطبيعي أو مجموعة الأشخاص الطبيعيين. ونلاحظ أن المقترح يضيف المجتمعات، المتأثرة إلى التعريف مع اشتراط تعرضها للتجاوز لحقوق الإنسان في سياق الأنشطة التجارية، إلا أننا نرى ضرورة النص بوضوح على الضرر المباشر، وضبط العلاقة السببية بين النشاط والضرر، ولا سيما عند قراءة هذا التعريف بالاقتران مع الفقرة 1.2 وعليه، نقترح اعتماد تعريفات أكثر دقة تضمن حماية جميع الضحايا دون تمييز وتوفير سبل انتصاب فعالة للأضرار المثبتة وتحد من التفسيرات القضائية المتباينة. وشكرا السيد الرئيس. Presidente-Relator [2:15:34]: Muchas gracias A GCC. La Unión Europea tiene la palabra. EU · Representante [2:15:59]: In article 1.1, we would welcome clarification of the meaning of immediate family members and dependents and the circumstances in which they would qualify as victims. and the nature of the harm required. We would also wish to clarify whether the formulation may also include leaves states discretion, or is covered coverage required when specified conditions are met? Thank you. Presidente-Relator [2:16:40]: عرابيا السعودية تعطينا Saudi Arabia · Representante [2:16:41]: شكرا السيد الرئيس. بداية يود وفد المملكة أن يضم صوته لبيان مجلس التعاون الدولي. الخليج العربية. السيد الرئيس تقدر المملكة جهود الرئيس المقرر في صياغة المقترحات. الا انها تلاحظ ان الصياغة المقترحة لتعريف الضحية ازدادت اتساعا. بإضافة المجتمعات المتأثرة والأشخاص الذين لحقهم الضرر أثناء تدخلهم لمساعدة الضحايا دون تقييد التعريف بمعيار الضرر المباشر، المباشر، وهو ما يعمق الغموض في معيار الصفة القانونية، ولا سيما إذا تم قراءة التعريف مع المادة 91 د التي تجيز الاختصاص على أساس جنسية الضحية أو محل إقامتها. لذلك تقترح المملكة بناء على مقترحات السابق أن يقصد بالضحية أي شخص تكبد ضررا مباشرا. ومعتبرا نتيجة تجاوز لحقوق الإنسان في سياق أنشطة الأعمال، دون تمييز على أساس الجنسية أو محل الإقامة وعلى أن يحدد وقوع الضرر وفقا للقانون الواجب التطبيق أمام المحكمة أو الجهة المختصة. مع جواز شمول أفراد الأسرة المباشرين أو المعالين فقط في الحالات التي يثبت فيها وجود ضرر مباشر. وقابل للإثبات بموجب القانون الوطني الداخلي المعمول به. مع التأكيد على أن الإعتراف بصفة الضحية لا يخل بتحديد المسؤولية القانونية وفقا للقانون الواجب للتطبيق. وشكرا للسيد الرئيس. Presidente-Relator [2:19:16]: Muchas gracias a Arabia Saudita. Cuba tiene la palabra. Cuba · Representante [2:19:33]: Muchas gracias, señor presidente. Cuba apoya la definición de víctima contenida en el artículo 1.1 y va valora su carácter amplio e inclusivo. La definición reconoce como víctima no solo a las personas sino también a grupos de personas y a las comunidades afectadas. Esta formulación refleja la realidad de muchas violaciones de derechos humanos cometidas por empresas transnacionales cuyos efectos, con frecuencia, son de carácter colectivo. Consideramos también aceptado que la condición de víctimas sea independiente de la nacionalidad o el domicilio de la persona. Esta precisión garantiza que ninguna víctima quede desprotegida por razones de origen o de lugar de residencia. Valoramos igualmente la inclusión de los familiares directos y las personas a cargo, así como quienes sufran daños al intervenir para asistir a víctimas o prevenir violaciones. Este lenguaje se corresponde con los estándares internacionales en la materia. Y finalmente, Cuba respalda que la condición de víctima sea reconocida con independencia del autor de de que el autor de la violación sea identificado, aprehendido, enjuiciado o condenado. Este elemento resulta esencial para asegurar el acceso a la justicia y a una reparación efectiva, en particular cuando existen obstáculos para identificar o procesar empresas responsables. Quisiéramos enfatizar en que nuestra única sugerencia a agregar en este artículo es después de business activities poner la frase of transnational corporation o transnational character para hacer este lenguaje coherente con el artículo tres. Muchas gracias. Presidente-Relator [2:21:25]: Muchas gracias A Cuba. Brasil tiene la palabra. Brazil · Representante [2:21:38]: Thank you so much, Chair. We also warmly welcome the Proposal nine and the explicit inclusion of affected communities. I think it's a fundamental achievement to acknowledge the collective dimension of social environmental harm suffered by indigenous peoples, traditional communities, and other populations. It is a reality that it's not fully captured by the individual phrase group of persons. Also to ensure technical consistency with Article nine, we could go along with irrespective of the nationality, habitual residence, or domicile of the victim. But we're flexible also to accommodate whichever formula formulation seems more coherent with the rest of the document. Thank you. Presidente-Relator [2:22:31]: Muchas gracias al Brasil Japón tiene la palabra. Japan · Representante [2:22:44]: Apologies for going back, but just in case our previous comment may be misinterpreted, we would like to clarify the comments we made on Article 16.3. In our comment on Article 16.3, that we made earlier this afternoon. We just wanted to show our appreciation that the teleporter's proposal seven explicitly spelled out that the obligation under the first sentence of this article would fall to state. states parties, not to business enterprises. That said, please do note that we still reserve the position on this article as a whole. And now let us move on to our comment on Article 1.1. And first, we would like to start out with a general comment on Article one as a whole. Article one defines what kinds of acts in what business activities constitute human rights abuse. This means that article one is inextricably linked to all other provisions in this draft LBI, and thus underpins the instrument in its entirety. As many countries, including Japan, have pointed out in the previous intersection of consultations, some definitions in the current text are possibly overly broad and vague, which we believe poses fundamental problems from the perspectives of legal certainty and predictability for businesses. We saw significant divergences of views among countries on many issues, issues during the intersectional consultations this year. And unless Article one is revised to realistic and well balanced wording that many countries can accept. We believe that this draft LBI cannot be successfully adopted with this in mind and reiterating that our comments on these are non exhaustive. We would like to set out our position on article one. So article on Article 1.1, we consider that the definition of victim in the current text is too broad. It does not sufficiently limit the relevancy or causal relationship between business activities and harm through clear criteria such as direct harm. And it includes any person or group of persons who claim to have suffered a human rights abuse in the context of business activities. It irrespective of their nationality or domicile. In addition, the term victim may also extend to the immediate family members and dependents, which could risk or disorderly expansion of the scope of claims by those who insist that they are the victims. The teleporter's proposal nine suggests that victims should include affected communities and persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims. But we are concerned that this also poses a risk of disorderly expansion of the scope of the term victim without establishing any criteria or limitations regarding causal relationship between acts and results. Based on this thinking, to limit the scope of the term victims to direct to the victims only, we propose deleting both the phrase or group of persons and the second sentence in article 1.1, which reads, quote, The term victim may also include the immediate family members or dependents of the direct victim, unquote. Also, we oppose the suggested addition of the phrase war affected communities in the teleporter's proposal nine. Since we consider that the notion of a collection of individual persons can still be included in the phrase any, person in the current text. Our suggestion enables the LBI to ensure that original intent of the suggested definition of victim, as well as conceptual precision and practical application. applicability while limiting the definition of victims to direct victims. It would also help to ensure predictability for business and effectiveness of the LVI. Thank you. Presidente-Relator [2:26:52]: Muchas gracias al Japón. Uruguay tiene la palabra. Uruguay · Representante [2:27:02]: Gracias. Con relación a esta propuesta, atribuimos particular importancia a la definición de víctima dado que incide directamente en la determinación de las personas que poderán beneficiarse de las medidas de protección, acceso a la justicia, y reparación preventivas en el instrumento. Por eso entendemos que la definición debería ser suficientemente clara y amplia para reflejar adecuadamente las distintas formas de daño que pueden derivar se de abusos relacionados con. actividades empresariales. Valoramos que el presidente relator haya tomado como referencia para esta propuesta los principios y directrices básicos contenidos en la Resolución 60/147 de la Asamblea General, y haya incorporado algunos de sus elementos en la nueva redacción, en particular la referencia a las personas que hayan sufrido daños al intervenir para asistir a víctimas o prevenir su victimización. No obstante, consideramos que esta aproximación podría complementar se incorporando expresamente la referencia al dano físico o mental. Y precisando, en línea, con dicha resolución, que la inclusión de los familiares inmediatos o personas a cargo de la vítima directa operará cuando corresponda, de conformidad con el Derecho interno. Entendemos que estos ajustes permitirían reforzar la claridad y el carácter protector de la definición, al tiempo que asegurarían una mayor coherencia con un marco internacional ya consolidado en materia de víctimas recursos y reparación. Muchas gracias. Presidente-Relator [2:28:29]: Muchas gracias al Uruguay. El estado de Palestina tiene la State of Palestine · Representante [2:28:46]: Persons harmed while assisting victims, consistent with basic principles. We, however, remain concerned by the term may, as we believe that family members and dependents shall be included. In line with the enforced disappearance convention, which treats any person harmed as a direct result as a victim. May leaves the status their status their status to each state's discretion. In addition, here and throughout the treaty text, we reiterate our position that the definition must refer to abuses abuses and violations, not just abusers. Thank you. Presidente-Relator [2:29:39]: Muchas gracias al Estado de Palestina. El Reino Unido tiene la palabra. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland · Representante [2:29:51]: Today and previously the definition of victims appears to be border than is often found under domestic and international law, which might undermine consensus on this document and ultimately broad ratification. So we would encourage streamlining of this provision. Our key concerns include firstly, we would suggest that whilst there could reasonably be provision in this article for family members where the victim is deceased, victims are normally classified as those who have directly suffered harm, as Japan and Saudi Arabia have already noted. Secondly, the definition of victim does not normally imply collective rights. And with notable exceptions, the UK does not accept the collective rights of communities since human rights generally belong to individuals. Thirdly, we note that the definition is untethered to nationality and domicile requirements. And fourthly, we find the phrase suffered harm intervening unclear. If this is aimed at human rights, defenders. We think the language could be more precise there. Thank you. Presidente-Relator [2:31:05]: Muchas gracias al Reino Unido Islandia tiene la palabra., Iceland · Representante [2:31:16]: On the definition of victims, Iceland encourages alignement with Ungar Resolution 6018 60/147. And it's formulation of persons who have suffered harm individually or collectively, which we bring up in hopes of addressing the concerns regarding collective harm and which the proposed the current proposed reference to affected communities seeks to capture. Moreover, the qualifier in Ungar Resolution 60/147 where it says, where appropriate and in accordance with domestic law, applied to family members and to persons harmed while intervening Iceland hopes that adding that reference may provide the legal clarity clarity that has been commented on in this room today and previously as well. Thank you Presidente-Relator [2:32:18]: Muchas Gracias a Islandia algún otro estado desea intervenir. China tiene La palabra. China · Representante [2:32:41]: 谢 主席 先生 呃 处方 关于 这个 定义 这 一块 补充 一点 意见 呃 定义 是 本 文书 当中 非常 重要 的 呃 基础性 的 相关 的 条款。 呃 中方 认为 为了 能够 最大 程度 的 凝聚 共识 呃 有 两个 原则性 的 呃 建议 呃， 第一个 是 谈判 应当 始终 符合 呃 第二。 六 九号 决议 的 授权 将 法律文书 的 适用范围 呃 限制 在 跨国 性质 的 工商业 活动。 呃 第二 是 尽量 优先 使用 在 国际法 上 已经 有 明确 定义。 的 概念， 避免 包含 一些 含义 不清 各方 的 理解 难以 达成 一致 的 用语。 1.1 条 当中 受害者 的 范围 呃 用到 了 比如说 社区 协助者 呃 这样 的 一些 用语 呃 希望 呃 法律 专家 可能 进一步 的 澄清 相关 呃 用语 的 定义 谢谢 主席 先生。 Presidente-Relator [2:33:58]: Muchas gracias a China algún otro estado desea intervenir? Bien. no es el caso. Pasamos entonces a pedidos de palabra de representantes de la sociedad civil y otros actores relevantes. Georgetown University. Tiene la palabra. Representante [2:34:31]: Delegates, This is a statement by Helena Stefano Stecca of Georgetown University on behalf of Change The Law Limited. Change the law agrees with the chairs proposals. To ensure inclusivity, we propose adding domestic or cohabiting partner as not all states recognize this status in their domestic law and many can face legal challenges to be recognized. The definition needs to have more inclusive language. Article 1.1 would read, victim shall mean any person or group of persons or affected communities who suffered a human rights abuse in the context of business activities, irrespective of the nationality or domicile of the victim, inclusive of sex, gender, children, age, persons with disabilities, Indigenous people, peoples, communities, migrants, refugees, internally displaced persons, legal or natural person or persons. The term victims may also include the immediate family members, domestic, or cohabiting partner or dependents of the direct victim, and persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims in distress or to prevent human rights abuse in the context of business activities. A person should be considered a victim regardless of whether the perpetrator of the human rights abuse is identified, apprehended, prosecuted, or convicted. Thank you, Chair. Presidente-Relator [2:35:55]: Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra a la Organización Internacional de Empleadores. IOE · Representante [2:36:08]: Of IOE and USCIB. We are not supportive of this proposal. The UNGPs do not define victims and they do not extend to broader categories of indirect claimants. The new reference to persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims in distress or to prevent human rights abuse goes even further. It is unclear who would qualify, how how such harm would be linked to a business activity or how a company could be expedited to. anticipate it. This would open an almost unlimited circle of potential claimants, creating uncertainty as to the scope of rights orders and remedies and is simply not implementable. Furthermore, we do not support the reliance in the background on the 25 basic principles and guidelines on the right to remedy and reparation. That resolution addresses gross violations on international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law. The UNGPs and dots later follow a different approach centered on access to effective remedy grounded in the International Bill of Human Rights and reflected in the. third pillar. More fundamentally, the term victim confirms that status that status before any arm has been established through an executive process. This definition should therefore be redrafted in its entirety, starting with the replacement of victim by rats older. Thank you. Presidente-Relator [2:37:32]: Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra, international transport workers. Federation. ITF · Representante [2:37:52]: Thank you Chair. I speak On behalf of The global labor movement. We welcome the suggest drafting changes. which align the text with the basic principles on the right to a remedy and reparation. We especially welcome the addition of the reference to person who have suffered harm while intervening to assist victims. trade unionists around the world as well as other human rights defenders will greatly benefit from this change. Thank you, Chair. Presidente-Relator [2:38:30]: Muchas gracias. cedo la palabra a Institute for Policy Studies. IPS · Representante [2:38:44]: On behalf of Institute for Policy Studies. And I'm from the Southern African Movement Rural Women's Assembly. We are a member of the global campaign and we have been participating in these negotiations since the beginning. to ensure the future treaty also reflects the struggles of peace and swimming in Africa and across the world. We know too well how corporate power and impunity are materialized in our. territories, in our land and seeds, in our food sovereignty. We welcome the chair's approach in this proposal, in particular, the conclusion of affected communities, along with victims which we have constantly consistently defended. We reiterate we are not merely victims. We are political actors demanding and fighting for stronger regulations. However, we must flag that in its final part, the text reflects only to human rights abuses and to business activities. For the text to be coherent with the international human rights law and the growing consensus language which pass violations and abuses. The term human rights violations should be included and harmonized throughout the text. This terminology was already retained by the chair in some of his proposals, and we call for it to be used consistently throughout the treaty. It is equally important that the objective scope of the instrument be reflected in full, which requires the reference to business activities of a transnational transnational character, in line with the scope in resolution 26 slash nine and our position for 1.4 and 1.5 that will be shared. We therefore urge the chair, to amend the closing waiting accordingly so that the text is consistent, precise, and faithful to the mandate. Thank you. Presidente-Relator [2:40:55]: Muchas gracias cedo La palabra a ESCRNet. ESCRNet · Representante [2:41:13]: Thank you chair, We read the statement On behalf of ESCRnet, we welcome the addition of or affected communities in the chairs proposals in Article 1.1. As stated in the chairs proposal and proposed by several states in the last session, we also support the addition of and persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims. However, we propose the removal of in distress or to prevent human rights abuse in the context of business activities, as it unnecessarily narrows down the definition. This would entail that a person assisting a victim could only be considered a victim when intervening to prevent human rights abuse, and not if they intervened after the abuse has occurred, such as lawyers or NGOs supporting those affected. who are often intimidated and face immense reprisals. We also reject the proposal from some states that the concept of collective rights is not common under international human rights law and is understood to include only those who've experienced direct harm. International human rights law already recognizes collective rights, collective victimhood, and collective reparations. The binding treaty should reflect all three, rather than potentially reduce reducing collective harm to an aggregation of individual injuries. Common Article one of the ICCPR and ICSCR recognizes the rights of peoples to self determination, and natural resources, while UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples expressly recognizes collective rights of indigenous peoples. Furthermore, Principle eight of UN General Assembly Resolution 60/147 also recognizes victims who have suffered harm individually or collectively. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Presidente-Relator [2:43:04]: Gracias. Este fue el último orador. Agradezco a todos los estados y a los representantes de la sociedad civil y otros actores relevantes que han presentado sus comentarios y sugerencias con respecto al artículo uno párrafo uno, definición de. víctima. A continuación, abordaremos la 10.ª propuesta de reformulación relativa a la definición de impacto adverso en los derechos humanos del artículo 1.2, que busca alinearla con el objeto del instrumento. Esta definición de debe leerse junto con las demás del artículo uno, que siguen un orden lógico. Una víctima es quien sufre un abuso de derechos humanos. Un abuso es un acto u omisión que resulta en un impacto adverso. Y un impacto adverso es un daño que reduce o elimina la capacidad de una persona o comunidad de disfrutar de sus derechos humanos. La expresión aparece además en la definición de debida diligencia del artículo 1.8 del instrumento, así como en el artículo 6.4. apartado b. Lo que permite contextualizar su relevancia para las obligaciones de prevención a reflejar en el instrumento. Durante las consultas temáticas interseccionales algunas delegaciones sugirieron consolidar esta definición con la de abuso de derechos humanos, mientras que otras prefirieron mantener ambas. También se planteó la distinción entre impactos reales y potenciales. Y se expresaron posiciones sobre la referencia al derecho a un medio ambiente limpio saludable y sostenible. Algunas delegaciones apoyaron asimismo eliminar la referencia a los derechos humanos internacionalmente reconocidos y, como referencia, se tuvo presente la guía interpretativa de 2024 de la Oficina del Alto Comisionado, sobre el acceso a reparación en casos de abusos de derechos humanos relacionados con empresas. En consecuencia, la reformulación propuesta introduce tres ajustes. Primero, precisa que el daño debe surgir en el contexto de actividades empresariales. Dos. Extiende la definición a la capacidad de los grupos de personas y de las comunidades afectadas en coherencia con la propuesta relativa al artículo 1.1. Tercero, se refiere al disfrute de un derecho humano sin el calificativo de internacional de internacionalmente reconocido relativo al ámbito material que se aborda en la propuesta sobre el artículo 3.3. En vista de la hora, propongo que iniciemos con la intervenciones de los estados sobre este proyecto de definición el día de mañana. A fin de no interrumpir la deliberación interactiva. Si no hay pedidos de la palabra entonces terminaríamos levantaríamos la sesión el día de hoy. Y nos reanudaríamos la misma el día de mañana a las 10:00. Gracias a todos por su participación. Se levanta la sesión.