2nd meeting, 12th Session of Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations
Human Rights Council
Date: 12 October 2026
Language: English
Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/en/asset/k15/k15yahfv81
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.

---

Speaker 1 [23:41]:

Buenas tardes.


Chair-Rapporteur [23:43]:

Good afternoon. Excellencies, distinguished participants, I'd like to declare open the second meeting of the 12th... Oh. 12th session of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Respect to Human Rights. We'll now continue with our list of speakers, with representatives of NGOs and other relevant stakeholders. I give the floor to International Human Rights Internship Program.


Speaker 3 [24:27]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I speak on behalf of Feminists for a Binding Treaty, a network of more than 30 organizations that has worked together since 2016 for a gender-responsive and feminist treaty. Globally, we are observing the rise of fascism and climate denial. We see blatantly imperialist strategies and practices, the persecution of migrants, racialized people, climate and human rights defenders, and we continue to witness grave atrocities, wars and genocides. This agenda cannot be separated from the attacks that women and queer communities also face. Both are a backlash against efforts to address systemic injustice, the capitalist, racist and patriarchal system that is sustained by corporate impunity. As feminists, we are aware of the need to collectively denounce, oppose, and resist the abuses and violations we witness and experience. The impact of business activities are neither neutral nor similarly experience, while corporate impunity operates globally, its consequences are particularly devastating in the global majority, disproportionately affecting women, girls, gender diverse people, and other groups in situation of vulnerability. This is why, as feminists, we gather here once again this year to renew our demand for a legally binding instrument that puts an end to this global impunity. We thank the chair rapporteur, his team, and the legal expert for the suggested redrafting of selected provisions. We generally support the proposals, which help to strengthen and clarify the text and advance the process. We particularly support the reference to the additional barriers faced by persons or groups in a situation of vulnerability or marginalization, including women. and the following listing in article 15.7 and we welcome states and the chair to include it throughout the text. This formulation recognized that vulnerability and marginalization result from structural inequalities, discrimination and unequal power relation, including those created and dependent by business activities. However, we are concerned that some of the proposals fail to address core for feminists for binding treaty demands. We will be addressing this concern in the discussion on articles. Finally, Mr. Chair, on the way forward, we call for clear and public criteria for how consensus will be reached in drafting the next text to ensure a transparent process. This criteria should prioritize the most protective human rights language in line with the mandate of resolution 26. per slash nine, they shall prioritize language that offers the strongest protection for human rights, the environments, and affected communities, and should retain the most supported amendments and suggestion. They should also clarify how recommendation made on specific article will interact with the rest of the text, since many of them affect the instrument as a whole. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [28:02]:

Thank you. I give the floor now to International Human Rights Internship Program, says the Chair. I apologize, says the Chair. I give the floor to DKA Austria.


DKA Austria [28:33]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your continued efforts to move this process forward. My name is Daniele Pamplona, and I speak on behalf of DK Austria, the Human Rights Clinics at UFMG and PUCPR in Brazil, and ECPAT International. We are here to continue contributing to the development of the LBI that reflects a concern shared by all of us, the protection of children, their rights, and their development in the context of business activities. Children are rights holders whose age, development, dependency and evolving capacities may expose them to specific and disproportionate impacts from business activities, sometimes with irreversible or long-term consequences. Our central message is simple. Whenever children are specifically or disproportionately affected by business activities, their rights and needs must be expressly recognized in the instrument. This applies to the rights at stake, the duties of states to prevent and protect against harm, human rights due diligence and meaningful participation, and the design of remedies and access to justice. General provisions may not be sufficient when children face distinct barriers or require specific safeguards. Children should not disappear within general categories of victims or vulnerability. Their rights, best interests, right to be heard and specific safeguards should remain visible throughout the instrument, from prevention and protection to access to justice and effective reparation through child-sensitive and child-friendly processes. As negotiations move forward, we encourage States to ensure that the best interests of the child are central to both the instrument's provisions and its implementation. To support this goal, we will propose a specific language throughout the week, and we look forward to discussing these proposals with States and other stakeholders. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [30:33]:

Thank you. I give the floor now to.


SUDWIND [30:40]:

I deliver this statement on behalf of Sudmin and the Electro Power project partners. Violations of labour rights in global value chains, including forced labour, have been well documented over the past decades. Despite public commitments of zero tolerance, the situation on the ground for workers has not only not improved, but seems to be getting worse. In order to address these labour rights violations, the instruments must include the following. Firstly, a recognition that global production networks rely on abusive structures where labor rights are systemic and systematic, preying on the vulnerability of workers, in particular migrant and women workers. These conditions affect workers' capacity to provide informed consent to enter and abandon a working relationship. Coercion and deceit lead to involuntariness, as per the ILO definition of forced labor. Therefore, reference to forced labor must appear in the treaty, in the instrument beyond the conflict settings. Secondly, increased reference to international labor law regime and the role of the ILO is needed. The text must clearly and explicitly establish that when it refers to international human rights, it includes international labor rights, and the ILO conventions are included in the terms relevant human rights conventions and instruments whenever this is used. Finally, the instrument must recognize the importance of trade unions for the protection of labor rights and their roles as both stakeholders and rights holders. Reprisals towards their leaders and members and the use of union bustings are alarmingly common. Without freedom of association and the capacity to bargain collectively, workers cannot advocate for their rights and their capacity to exercise the right to an effective remedy is severely limited. And I thank you, Mr.

Chair.


Chair-Rapporteur [32:28]:

Thank you very much. I give the floor to SETIM.


SETIM [32:39]:

Thank you, Chair. I take the floor on behalf of SETIM to recall that in line with many multilateral and bilateral agreements on investments that were imposed by large powers through financial and trade institutions, These companies have obtained many rights, to the point that they are imposing their monopoly on all sectors of the economy and they can dictate their will on states. As everyone knows, this power was not accompanied by responsibilities. And these entities often enjoy full impunity when they violate human rights norms or norms related to employment and the environment. The intergovernmental resolution 26/9 has as its goal to ensure the responsibility and accountability of these entities. in connection with their activities in order that through their value change they're held accountable when they're involved in human rights violations. Chair, the pressure and lobbying and due to lack of political will of certain powerful countries, the working group did not fulfill its mandate. Nevertheless, this question has been on the agenda of the United Nations for more than 50 years, and the measures to be taken are clear. These companies should be submitted to democratic and legal controls. This will be a step towards ensuring the trust of citizens and peoples. in connection with their political institutions. Such steps will also make it possible for states to find their sovereignty once again. In this context, the future treaty should be elaborated in line with resolution 26/9 of the Human Rights Council. A treaty that ignores the right of people to self-determination, the claims of people and affected communities will not have, such a treaty will not have any legitimacy. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [35:03]:

Thank you very much. I give the floor to Institute for Policy Studies.


Belgium · MEP [35:08]:

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Rudy Kennes, and I'm a member of the European Parliament from Belgium and a member of the Global Inter-Parliamentary Network. As a former worker and union representative, I know firsthand the effects of corporate impunity. I worked for over 30 years for General Motors assembling cars, and as a vice chairman of the European Works Council of GM Europe, I worked with people from all over the world. And the story is sadly everywhere the same. Big corporations are bending or blatantly violating people's rights, but escaping consequences. And I wish I could say that the EU is playing a productive role in this process. After all, Europe is the continent that always lectures others about human rights. But this is not the case. This European Commission has only two goals: militarization and deregulation. While billions of taxpayers' money is pumped towards weapons, the destruction of our social infrastructure and the violation of human rights are treated as collateral damage or the cost of competitiveness. as much was clear when the Commission destroyed its own due diligence law even before it was entered into force. So today, I call on the EU and its members to stop listening to the sweet lies corporate lobbies are whispering into your ears. Push instead for a tribunal and hold transnational corporations accountable, and for a treaty that upholds the primacy of human rights over economic interests, or otherwise Please get out of the way. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [36:57]:

Thank you very much. I give the floor to International Collective in Support of Fishworkers.


Speaker 13 [37:09]:

Mr. Chair, I am Sibongile Gule from South Africa, speaking on behalf of the World Forum of Fisherpeople and a member of Global Campaign to Dismantle Corporate Power. Across the South African coast, transnational corporations such as Shell and TotalEnergies carry out seismic blasting to extract more fossil fuels in our oceans. These projects intensify the climate crisis and deeply affect our ability to fish and feed our families without consulting us, respecting our rights to free, prior and informed consent. After polluting and destroying our livelihoods, these companies leave the country with their profits, closing possible pathways for accountability. This is why we need to ensure that the headquarters of these companies are held accountable for invading our territories. We must also have a strong enforcement mechanism, hence the demand for an international tribunal on transnational corporations and human rights, as supported by the Palestinians, Mozambique and Colombia. We understand the financial crisis and the budget cuts facing the UN. However, corporate power is also stifling and weakening the multilateral system. We cannot accept the cost of this crisis falling upon civil societies. Within 24 hours of the beginning of these sessions, we received an update from the Secretariat about the possibility of limiting our presence to only five people per ECOSOC accreditation. This process originated as a demand from us, the movement fighting against systematic human rights violations committed by these transnational corporations. There are over 60 of us delegates present here, having traveled from 24 different countries from all regions. We are key political actors in these negotiations and we demand guarantees for space and conditions necessary for the full and effective participation of organized civil society. This process began with our own hands and our own struggle. We will continue and so we ensure rights for people and rules for corporations. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [39:12]:

Thank you very much. I give the floor to Defending Freedom.


ADF International [39:19]:

Chair, rapporteur, ADF International welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the discussions on the draft legally binding instrument. We share the aim of a strong consensus-based text that meaningfully advances respect and protection of human rights in the business sphere. In that spirit, we respectfully offer three considerations. First, we invite states to consider the consistency of the draft LBI with existing international law in both substantive and procedural elements so that it complements and does not alter or displace existing obligations. Second, we encourage delegations to keep in view that efforts to prevent abuses by business enterprises should be pursued in a manner that does not impair the enjoyment by persons of their human rights and fundamental freedoms. Provisions that bear on their exercise, including definition, should be carefully framed in light of the established thresholds under international law so that the instrument's protective purposes does not lead enterprises or states to erode that judgment. Finally, we stress the importance of legal clarity in the development of the LBI. The use of precise wording helps avoid divergent or arbitrary interpretation and provides a sound basis for implementation so that the text speaks clearly for itself and leaves no key questions open after adoption. Mr. Chair Rapporteur, we look forward to contributing our inputs on relevant provisions under discussions at this session and remain at the disposal of any delegation wishing to explore these points further. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [41:05]:

Thank you. I now give the floor to Friends of the Earth International.


Friends of the Earth International [41:14]:

Thank you very much, Chair. I speak on behalf of the indigenous peoples of the Ecuadorian Amazons, the Union of People Affected by Texcon, Friends of Earth International, the Global Campaign. There are many social movements throughout the world, and today we are here with 55 persons that came from 25 countries to be here and to provide support to this process. In 12 years of negotiations, thousands of people have died from environmental disasters, for example, in Vale in Brazil from cancer derived from Chevron's toxic chemicals in Ecuador, or under the bombs produced by transnational corporations in the genocide against the Palestinian people. Hundreds of human rights defenders have been killed as a result of these crimes. While the suffering grows in this all, the transnational companies and their lobbyists have blocked the elaboration of a binding treaty. With the ISDS system, corporate power continues to govern the rulers. We urge states to remember the central mandate of this process: to protect human rights and put an end to impunity. Affected communities, trade unions, women, young people, indigenous peoples will not take a step back. That is why today we are launching throughout the world the Checkmate campaign. We will intensify our struggle throughout the world until we combat fully corporate impunity. We will not allow the people to continue to be sacrificed as pawns for the benefit of transnational capital. It's time checkmate corporate impunity for rights for the peoples of rules of for companies checkmate for the transnationals thank you gracias


Chair-Rapporteur [43:09]:

thank you very much I give the floor to association but a promotion protection de los derechos humanos


Germany · MEP [43:19]:

my name is Martin Gunther I'm a member of the European Parliament from Germany I can't negotiate the treaty on behalf of the EU. However, the EU bears a particular responsibility in this room. Historically, European corporations have profited across borders. Yet, when affected communities seek justice, borders become walls. If we talk so much about justice, this is precisely the architecture of corporate impunity that we must dismantle. Across the world, indigenous people, black communities and social movements demand binding corporate accountability and free, prior and informed consent, including veto power on projects threatening their lands. And we know exactly European consumption has consequences far beyond Europe. Germany, for example, has consumed Colombian coal from region inhabited by the Wajiu and Yucay indigenous people whose survival is threatened. And we can't keep importing resources and importing the consequences. This treaty is a historic opportunity to end corporate impunity and to deliver justice through enforceable liability, access to justice, and international accountability mechanisms.

I support this treaty.


Friends of the Earth International [44:43]:

The EU must negotiate binding rules that reflect the demand of communities in the global south, communities that have historically borne the consequences of corporate impunity. Europe's human right commitments must become action, not words. We are corporate power is global. Accountability must be global too. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [45:11]:

Thank you. I give the floor ActionAid.


ActionAid [45:21]:

Thank you very much, Chairperson, Rapporteur. I speak on behalf of Action Aid Trokair, the Parliament of the Ch'inka people, the Council of the Mayan people, and the Peace and Environment Commission. Today, we would like to refer to our experience as Indigenous peoples from the reality that our communities live in the face of extractive companies and projects in Guatemala and other countries. Indigenous peoples have been facing militarization, threats, attacks, criminalization, discrediting and other forms of violence that have become patterns driven by business projects, often supported by the states themselves, to place themselves in a territory that does not belong to them and negotiate with our national resources without consulting us. These situations cannot be understood only as isolated environmental conflicts with cultural and cosmological impact, but these business activities affect our territory and our cultural survival and continuity as a people. For native peoples of Guatemala, territory is more than physical space due to its deep relationship to Mother Earth. We're not talking about simply material losses. that can be compensated economically. We're talking about our memory, our spirituality, our culture, and the continuity of our people. For this reason, it is critically important to ensure that this next version of the treaty directly recognizes Indigenous Peoples as collective subjects of rights and establishes clear obligations for states and companies. We demand a binding treaty on business and human rights that recognizes our free determinations and respect our own ways of life. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [47:19]:

Thank you. I give the floor to International Transport Workers Federation.


Speaker 24 [47:32]:

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of over 200 million workers belonging to the trade union organizations ITUC, BWI, EI, IndustriALL, ITF, IUF, IFJ, PSI, and UNI. For ease, from now on, we will refer to ourselves as the global labor movement. Chair, we also join others in congratulating you, your team, the legal experts and the secretariat for the extensive work that was carried out during the intersessional period. In relation to the summary report on the intersessional consultations, we believe that it accurately reflects the discussions and, as such, we will not take the floor on that item. While acknowledging their non-legal status in the methodology, we truly appreciate your redrafting proposals, as they represent a genuine attempt at finding areas of convergence while also clarifying the text without diluting it. For us in organized labor, there are some very positive proposals, including those on mutual legal assistance, consistency with international law, and personal scope. However, we continue to have concerns about some provisions, including those relating to institutional arrangements and material scope, particularly with reference to trade union rights. We will make detailed submissions on individual proposals over the course of the week. Overall, we are heartened by the progress that has been made over the past two years under your principled stewardship of the process. Having now gone through the updated draft in full and with significant improvements and compromises made during the negotiations and through your proposals, we look forward to seeing a new draft in 2027. We urge the working group to engage constructively with the new draft, with a view ultimately to adopting the LBI in the not-too-distant future. Chair, in concluding, we need to stress how workers around the world continue to face the brunt of a polycrisis that is not of their own making. Decades of neoliberal policies and deregulation, including recently in the space of corporate accountability, have led to a collapse of worker protections, both individual and collective, paving the way for reactionary forces and authoritarians to take hold. Multilateralism and the international legal order continue to come under attack. Corporate human rights abuse and complicity in international crimes continue to go unpunished. In this context, the process to develop an LBI represents a boon for multilateralism and a bulwark against corporate impunity. At this 12th session, the global labor movement renews its call for an LBI that will finally close a glaring normative gap in international human rights law and ensure justice and accountability for millions of workers in global supply chains. I thank you, Chair.


Chair-Rapporteur [50:28]:

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much. Distinguished delegates and participants, that was the last speaker on our list. And that being so, it brings to a conclusion our debate on the segment covering general statements. Under agenda item 4 of the agenda that we've approved, we can now move on to the segment titled "Presentation of the summary of the thematic consultations held during the intersessional period covering articles 12 to 24 and of the proposed changes from the presidency, which were the outcome of the consultations, followed by an interactive dialogue." Following the methodology of the relevant segment of the 11th session, this has a dual proposal. First of all, we want a brief formal presentation of the key issues that were dealt with during the first intersessional consultations. We can find that in the document that was prepared and circulated prior to this session. Secondly, we want to have a presentation and put into context the Chair's proposals, which will be projected on the screen and which will serve as the basis for an interactive dialogue. However, before I present my proposed changes to the text, I want to begin with some comments of a general nature on the intersessional thematic consultations that were held during 2026. Pursuant to decision 56/116 of the Human Rights Council and bearing in mind the road map for its implementation during the course of this year, we held three intersessional thematic consultations, which were open for participation from states and other relevant stakeholders. The first was held on 7 and 8 April and it focused on articles 12 to 24 of the updated draft of the legally binding instrument. The second consultation was held on 9 April and it tackled articles 2 and 3. The third consultation was held on 28 and 29 May, and it focused on article 1 of the preamble and took a look at the general overview of the text. In that respect, we must remember that, in the context of the liquidity crisis affecting the United Nations, the working group developed and concluded the consultations in good time and effectively, holding the three consultations over a five-day period. I particularly wish to thank the commitments and flexibility that were demonstrated by all delegations so that we could make the best use of the time available. From the perspective of the chair, Those intersessional thematic consultations demonstrated, once again, their absolute value. In addition to the three consultations that were held in 2025, the working group was able to consider all the updated versions of the legally binding instrument through its six thematic consultations. That was an important hallmark in the implementation of decision 56/116, which was adopted by the Human Rights Council in July 2024. The consultations allowed us to add to the direct intergovernmental negotiations that were carried out within the working group, allowing for of more in-depth consideration of the legal implications of the different proposals and the identification of possible areas of common ground. Just like last year, before each consultation, informal documents, or non-papers, prepared by the chair rapporteur, together with the legal experts, were circulated and submitted under my responsibility. These non-papers identify the key elements of each article, the main comments and proposals submitted by States and other relevant stakeholders in previous sessions. They also identify their possible legal implications in the light of other instruments and point to sources of international law. Those documents do not have legal value, nor do they replace the updated draft legally binding instruments. They do not replace the proposed texts submitted by states during the 9th, 10th and 11th sessions. On this basis, and pursuant to the mandate of decision 56/116, we drafted the summary report of the intersessional thematic consultations held in 2026. You can find that in document A/HRC/WG.16/12/CRP.1, dated 21 September. Following the practice of the reports of the working groups of the Human Rights Council, including the annual report of this working group, the above-mentioned summary includes brief and factual information, with nothing attributed to any state, organisation or other stakeholders, and it includes the main aspects discussed by various participants or delegations. mentioned by a group of States without repeating arguments already contained in the non-papers. Amongst some of the key aspects of the first thematic consultation, we tackled Article 12 on reciprocal legal assistance or mutual legal assistance, where many delegations and organizations stressed its importance. in achieving the goals of the instrument and assisting victims to obtain redress in cross-border cases. As regards article 13 on international co-operation, emphasis was placed on how important it was to ensure effective implementation of the instrument, especially when tackling the transnational dimension of abuse and to strengthen national capacities. Different opinions were expressed on the binding or other nature of its provisions. And also on Article 14 on coherence with international law, various delegation emphasized the importance of having a framework that was clear and legally certain on the relationship between the instrument and other international instruments, ensuring there was consistency with the law of treaties. Other delegations and organizations, on the other hand, emphasized the importance of non-regression and the consistency and coherence with other branches of international law. Relating to article 15 on institutional provisions, institutional arrangements, an emphasis was placed on the importance of having a committee overseeing the implementation of the instrument. And there was also an emphasis on challenges currently faced by the treaty body system. Regarding Article 16 on implementation, Various participants emphasized its key importance in order to ensure consistent implementation pursuant to international law, something which is effective in practice, paying particular attention to business activities in areas affected by conflict, when affecting persons and groups in a situation of greater risk and the protection of public policy. in the face of undue influence. And finally, relating to articles 18, 19, and 22 on dispute settlement, and to the signing and ratification and to reservations, then exchanges focused on comparing the text with the relevant clauses of other human rights treaties and the relevant provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Distinguished delegates, participants, I would now like to refer to the document which includes my proposals for this session, this 12th session. As everybody knows, on 25 September document A/HRC/WG.16/12/CRP.2 was circulated and published. This is an annex document to the summary of intersessional thematic consultations of this year. It is an annex that contains my proposals for redrafting 22 selected provisions of the draft of the updated legally binding instruments, eight proposals relating to articles 12 to 14, which we will be considering as of now, and 14 proposals relating to articles 1 to 3, which will be presented, as the programme of work details, as of Wednesday morning. The eight proposals that we will be tackling during this first segment relate to articles 12.1 on mutual legal assistance, 13.2 on international co-operation, 14.3 and 14.5 on consistency or coherence with international law, 15.4 and 15.7 on the role of the committee and the International Fund for Victims, and 16.3 and 16.6 on implementation. We should point out that the document reformulating 22 provisions was drafted by the chairman rapporteur with the assistance of the legal experts. bearing in mind the methodology of the intersessional thematic consultations, which was circulated at the end of the 11th session, also bearing in mind the development of the debates during the 2026 consultations and the announcement that I made at the end of the third consultation. For each provision selected, the document includes the current text of the updated draft of the instrument, the previous provisions and the proposals presented in relation to it, and other sources or language which could be borne in mind, the goal of the new proposed language, and the new suggested language will be highlighted in blue to make reading it easier, identifying it easier in the text. The 22 new proposals or redrafts have been drafted bearing in mind all of the comments and suggestions made by States and other relevant stakeholders within this working group. including those that are included in the compilation text that is available on the working group portal. We have also mentioned the possible benefits of further simplifying the text, ensuring that, while we do that, the substantive content of the articles is not watered down or undermined in any way. As is provided for in the methodology that we have mentioned, this document is presented under my sole responsibility, and the 22 proposals that it includes do not have legal value, nor do they replace the updated draft of the legally binding instrument, nor do they replace the proposals made by States during the 9th, 10th and 11th session. Their only purpose is to reflect possible areas of common ground or solutions or options which can be put to this Working Group for consideration. I also wish to indicate that, heeding the request made during the 11th session, both the summary report and the annex have been circulated prior to the session in good time, in order to ensure that delegations and relevant stakeholders have sufficient time to analyze them and consult with capital. As regards the methodology of this segment covering articles 12 to 24 and pursuant to the programme of work, I will first of all give the floor to States and then to other relevant stakeholders, so that those who wish can make general observations on the thematic consultations, the summary report and the proposals. After this, I will be introducing one by one the eight proposals They will be projected on the screen. I will first of all give the floor to States. Following the States, we will hear from other relevant stakeholders in a bid to have an informal, dynamic and interactive dialogue. Just like in the 11th session, we will not have a formal list of speakers for this segment. So, I would like to invite delegations to ask for the floor by raising their nameplates. Hand in hand with this, and pursuant to what we have always done in this working group, any delegation will be able to, through the Chair, ask specific questions to the legal experts. Their participation will continue to be objective, neutral and impartial. They will limit themselves to explain aspects of a legal nature in full respect of the intergovernmental nature of this negotiation process. We will once again call all states and other relevant stakeholders to participate constructively in this dialogue, analyzing and commenting on the proposals, not from their established positions expressed previously in prior sessions of this working group, but rather speak with a pragmatic approach, aiming to ensure that this working group can meet its ends and in an attempt to identify common ground and find solutions to the different proposals presented in previous sessions and during the intersessional period too. There is no doubt that this process is occurring at a particularly important moment in time. The working group at the end of this 12th session will have completed its consideration of the entire updated draft of the legally binding instrument, and will have done this through the formal negotiations and through the intersessional thematic consultations. This will provide us with a good basis to progress. through the following steps that the States decide to make relating to the conclusions and recommendations. That being said, I would now like to open the floor to States that wish to make comments of a general nature on the first intersessional thematic consultation on the summary report and on the proposed reformulations. for articles 12 to 24 of the draft legally binding instrument. Are there any requests for the floor from states for this segment? I do not have any requests for the floor, so I will now give an opportunity to representatives of civil society and other relevant stakeholders, if they wish, to make any comments of a general nature on the first intersessional thematic consultation, the summary report and the proposed reformulations for articles 12 to 24. I would remind you that you'll have an opportunity to discuss matters on an article by article basis, so this is a space for general comments only. The International Organization of Employers has the floor.


Speaker 26 [1:10:56]:

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 first thematic consultation on Article 12 to 24. The report confirms that key questions remain unresolved, reflecting calls and concerns that business fully shares. On Article 12, mutual legal assistance can only work if it is implementable within domestic legal systems and existing international obligations. Procedural safeguards, data protection, and clear grounds for refusal are not optionals, they are essential. On Article 13, effective international cooperation cannot be achieved without the private sector. National employers federation, business, and in particular SMEs must be recognized as a partner alongside states. On article 14, legal certainty requires full consistency with existing international obligations and established treaty law. This instrument cannot subordinate existing agreements, including trend and investment agreements, and any argument for a hierarchy in its favor should be firmly set aside. On Article 15, at a time of severe financial constraints, the focus should be on effective implementation, not on new quasi-judicial mechanisms, such as individual complaints, procedures, or an international tribunal. On Article 16, finally, states must remain responsible for implementation. Provisions on conflict-affected areas must make clear what is expected of states and of business in line with the UNGPs. Provisions singling out business, such as article 16.6, have no place in this instrument and should not be strengthened, but deleted. Chair, these are not isolated concerns. They are shared by many delegations, as the report itself shows. We therefore urge you to ensure that the next draft builds on these areas of possible convergence, remains anchored in the UNGPs, and focuses on the effective enforcement of existing laws. Proposals that move in the opposite direction would only drive this process further away from consensus. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [1:13:10]:

Thank you very much. Are there any further requests for the floor? Well, it would appear not to be the case. We can now move on to the individual consideration of the proposals for alternative drafts submitted by the Chair relating to articles 12 to 24 and pursuant to the methodology which I described and mentioned earlier. So, first of all, a proposal for redrafting of Article 12.1 on mutual legal assistance. Now, the aim is to ensure that this provision is very closely linked to existing provisions in this area in various multilateral treaties and to broaden the scope of the measures that it applies to. Article 12 lays down that the States party must provide mutual legal assistance to each other in civil, criminal or administrative proceedings or related to the goal of the instrument, especially as regards the implementation of article 6 on prevention, 7 on access to remedies, and 8 on legal responsibility. This provision is based on the opening clauses of articles on mutual legal assistance of the United Nations Convention on the Unlawful Traffic of Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988, also based on the UN Convention on Transnational Organized Crime of 2000. and of the UN Convention on Corruption of 2003. Notwithstanding this, as it is currently drafted, Article 12 does not suffice if one compares it with the clauses on mutual legal assistance in the above-mentioned instruments. For this reason, In order to redraft it, we analysed the texts proposed, submitted by States during the 11th session, and the commentaries made in intersessional thematic consultations. We particularly bore in mind article 7 of the 1988 Convention and article 46 of the Convention against Corruption, as well as articles 18 and 27 of the Convention on Transnational Organized Crime. On that basis, the chair rapporteurship wishes to put some amendments to the working group for consideration. First of all, we suggest that reference be made to the widest measure of mutual legal assistance. That is pursuant to the terminology of the treaties that we use for comparison. Secondly, we suggest a link between assistance and implementation and not to enforcement of the measures provided for in the instrument, and that this also be referred to articles 4 to 8. to ensure that assistance also covers the rights and protection of victims, including the investigation of human rights abuses and the adoption of interim measures, which, when they are of a transnational nature, often require the cooperation between institutions of more than one State Party. Thirdly, Bearing in mind that the current text could be interpreted as an imposition on the state requested to provide an obligation to lend assistance based on requests from private parties, we suggest replacing this reference by a formulation which we find in other international treaties. This would provide for assistance relating to notification or service of documents and the obtaining of evidence or statements from persons. Finally, the proposal includes a new paragraph, which we have provisionally identified as article 12.5. which is based on article 12.10 of the third revised draft of the legally binding instrument. Pursuant to this paragraph, any ruling by a competent court relating to the instrument, be it to be implemented in the state of origin and not subject to appeal or review, would be recognized and enforced in any state party. once the formalities required in that state are complied with, as long as such formalities are not more burdensome, nor would the rights and the duties and costs be higher than those required by the implementation of national rulings, and without this reopening debate on the merits of the matter. Having given you that introduction, I would like to open the floor for States in the first instance, if they wish to make any comments on proposal 1, to reformulate article 12.1.

The European Union.


EU [1:20:26]:

Good afternoon and thank you, Chair. Before I start, I would like to, uh, state that the following general comments, primarily, uh, throughout today and throughout this week, primarily aim to present the EU approach and experience in addressing the… substantive issues covered by this draft LBI, notably following the entry into force of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive on 25th of July, 2024, as and amended. by Omnibus I Directive this year to the extent relevant. The comments, our comments do not represent a negotiating position on behalf of the EU on the text. The following comments focus on the key elements of the Chair rapporteur's proposed redrafting and they are not intended to be comprehensive. Now, going more specifically on the articles, and the article you just presented, Article 12, we have the following comments. Concerning Article 12.1, the clarifications on the service of documents and the taking of evidence appears to improve the text. And as regards the proposal to reintroduce a provision on the recognition and enforcement of judgments in article 12.5, we recall our earlier concerns. The proposed wording does not appear to address basic requirements for a recognition and enforcement, including grounds for refusal such as for instance, public policy. The requirement that formalities should not be more erroneous and fees and charges not higher than those required for the enforcement of domestic judgments also raises questions, given the additional formalities inevitably associated with the enforcement of foreign judgments. More fundamentally, we would have concerns as to the added value of the proposed provision in light of work already completed at international level, in particular the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, to which EU acceded in 2022 and whose wider uptake it seeks to promote. Duplication with this work should be avoided, ensuring consistency with that convention. Further, it should be carefully considered whether a complementary provision would address specific remaining obstacles to access remedy, taking account of the convention's scope and conditions for recognition and enforcement, as well as other available mechanisms. Any such provision would require a clearly defined scope, appropriate jurisdictional conditions and safeguards, including respect for the rights of defense and grounds for refusal. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [1:23:48]:

Thank you to the European Union. I give the floor now to the Gulf Cooperation Council.


GCC [1:24:04]:

Shukran, Shukran, Sayid, Rais.

Thank you, Chair. The GCC countries underscores the importance of mutual legal assistance in ensuring access to remedy and justice while respecting national legislations and countries jurisdictions. With regard to Article 12.1, we stress the need that legal cooperation and legal assistance should be subjected to a mutual applicable conventions and legal legislations and should not affect legal jurisdictions. There must be clear grounds that can be used to repeal and refuse the granting of assistance. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [1:24:58]:

Thank you very much. To the GCC, I give the floor to the Philippines.


Philippines [1:25:09]:

First time to intervene. The Philippines would like to express its congratulations to you, Your Excellency, on your re-election as chair rapporteur, and lauds Ecuador for its committed leadership of this important process, which we supported with our vote in favor of HRC/26/9 in 2014. We thank you for the proposals and recognize the hard work that went into it in close collaboration with the legal experts, uh, to whom we owe all, uh, deep appreciation. At the outset, let me emphasize that the comments we will provide today are preliminary and subject to refinement upon completion of internal interagency discussions on the proposed legal binding instrument, basically the most updated draft, which was the third revised draft of the LBI. On proposals 12.1 and 12.5, the Philippines welcomes the effort to align this provision with articles on mutual legal assistance of key multilateral frameworks to which we a State Party. The Philippines attaches great importance to mutual legal assistance as an important mechanism for facilitating the administration of justice and the rule of law in the context of transboundary challenges. The presence of Filipino migrant workers across the globe under different criminal justice systems gives us additional motivation to pursue MLAs. They allow us to overcome jurisdictional barriers in taking cross-border evidence, serving judicial documents, and securing witnesses' testimonies, among others, by establishing direct operational channels between designated central authorities for justice administration. In addition to multilateral conventions, the Philippines has concluded bilateral MLAs with key partners, and also in our region, we have the ASEAN Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. We stress that an MLA under this proposed LBI must essentially be state driven. It must uphold the key role of state central authorities as enforcers of formal interstate MLA requests, while appropriately accommodating cross-border judicial assistance requests arising from proceedings involving private individuals. We note that the proposed language replaces certain references that seems to obligate states to provide mutual legal assistance on the basis of direct requests from private parties. On new 12.5, we also note that the Philippine judicial rules allow for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judicial decisions without relitigating the merits provided due process and jurisdictional requirements are satisfied. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [1:27:50]:

I thank the Philippines. I give the floor to Japan.


Japan [1:27:59]:

We would like to make comment on Article 4.1. While we can agree with the intent of this provision to seek cooperation among States Parties in mutual legal assistance, Cooperation in civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings is implemented based on a domestic legal system in each jurisdiction, and we believe that it is not feasible for each state party to provide cooperation beyond its domestic legal framework. Although we have already expressed this concern at the previous session, it has not been reflected in the chair reporter's proposal. We therefore would like to reiterate this point and in order to clarify that cooperation should be carried out within the scope of each state party's domestic legal system, we once again suggest inserting, quote, "to the extent consistent with their domestic legal system," unquote, after, quote, "states party should afford," unquote. We would like to also make some comments on article 12.3, which was not as a part of proposal. to a reporter's proposal. Bilateral or multilateral cooperation, collaboration, and information sharing should be determined in accordance with the individual necessities for policy demands of the authorities concerned in each country. A legally binding provision as indicated by the use of "shall" without due consideration of this point would impose an obligation of cooperation regardless of each country's circumstances. which we can accept. Accordingly, we propose to use -- we propose to avoid using "shall" and change the wording to simply, quote, "States parties are encouraged to take necessary steps," unquote. We believe our proposal is more appropriate in the sense that it clearly recognizes reasonable discretion, such as domestic and policy considerations for each country in a specific implementation, while requiring state parties to make efforts to provide assistance. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [1:30:20]:

I thank Japan. I give the floor to Iceland.


Iceland [1:30:31]:

Thank you, Chair. As this is the first time Iceland takes the floor, allow me to congratulate you, Chair, Rapporteur, on your re-election, and thank you, the legal experts, as well as everyone else that contributed to the summary report and the suggested redrafting. Iceland notes that our comments are preliminary and without prejudice to our final position. On article 12.1, Iceland supports retaining the shell together with the widest measure, which reflects instruments to which most delegations here are already party. We understand, however, the concern of several delegations regarding the application of this obligation across different legal systems. And in our view, that concern could be addressed by setting out in a separate paragraph the grounds on which assistance may be refused, which would also draw on article 4621 of the UNCAC, which we consider may provide both legal certainty and predictability. And then on the proposed article 12.5, Iceland supports the objective of ensuring the enforcement of judgments obtained by victims. However, as the analysis in the Chair's own non-paper recognizes, recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is distinct from mutual legal assistance and therefore suggests that it may be better placed in a separate article, perhaps alongside articles 9 and 11. In the spirit of constructive engagement, we also suggest that the text scope would be limited to civil and commercial matters and that we provide grounds for refusal, drawing on HCCH 2019 judgments convention. And lastly, by specifying that it's without prejudice to existing regional instruments that are, yeah, that do exist in this field. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [1:33:02]:

Thank you, Iceland. I give the floor to Brazil.


Brazil [1:33:09]:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair Rapporteur. We welcome very much your efforts to refine Article 12 on your proposal 1. We think this article must ensure cross-border legal cooperation, access to justice, production of evidence, and we see your proposal as going in this direction. We strongly support maintaining the mandatory term "shall afford" in 12.1. and reject any qualifiers like as possible or where feasible. We appreciate also mentioning widening the scope to articles 4 to 8. Just to point out that this would require adapting throughout the text. I think on also article 12.3 AI, there's a mentioning to this article, just a point of formality. And we could also go along with deleting the second part if it's understood that this would not hinder victims' access to remedy in the context of civil proceedings. And as to article 12.5, we could support the reintroduction as well. Now, regarding the discussion of grounds for refusal, even if we agreed that mentioning grounds for refusal could eventually improve the article, we trust that it could be more useful leaving the listing of what such grounds for refusal could be, leave that to domestic legislation. And then we understand that the article already mentions formalities. So such formalities could already encompass the grounds for refusal, right? And if the formalities of the country are fulfilled, therefore overcoming the grounds for refusal, then it would be enforced. So we see that that would already be encompassed by that term. And Mr. Chair, if you'll allow me also to comment on articles not within the proposal, we would just highlight on Article 12.3, and in fact, throughout the sections concerning cooperation, highlight the importance of an explicit reference to designated central authorities. We just really like to reiterate our preference for this model of cooperation. We think that that would establish a predictable, single contact point within each state party. And it's a model that's been proven effective in other judicial cooperation models, such as the Hague Convention. So just to stress this point on Article 12.3, and indeed in Article 13 as well. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [1:35:59]:

Muchas gracias.

I'd like to thank Brazil. I give the floor to Qatar.


Qatar [1:36:13]:

Qatar. With regard to Article 12.1 concerning mutual legal assistance, our delegation appreciates the proposed clarification and expansion of the scope of cooperation between the state parties. We recognize that effective cooperation is particularly important in cases involving transnational business activities where relevant evidence documents, witnesses or other information may be located in different jurisdiction. We therefore welcome the objective of extending the relevant cross-reference to articles 4 through 8, thereby covering matters relating not only to prevention and liability, but also to the rights and protection of victims. Nevertheless, we consider it important to clarify the procedures through which such assistance would be requested and provided. In particular, we believe that mutual legal assistance should operate through the competent national authorities in accordance with applicable domestic legislation and relevant international agreements. This would help preserve procedural safeguards, legal certainty and the orderly administration of justice. We would therefore suggest that the provision expressly recognize the role of competent authorities and the applicable legal procedures governing requests for assistance. Moreover, our delegation wishes to also address the proposed amendment on Article 12.5 concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. We recognize the objective of facilitating effective remedies for victims in circumstances where a judgment has been issued in one jurisdiction while the relevant assets or enforcement measures are located in another. However, we consider that the proposed obligation raises important questions concerning jurisdiction, procedural fairness, and the applicable conditions for recognition and enforcement. First, the provision should be considered in conjunction with Article 9, since the recognition of a foreign judgment necessarily depends upon the jurisdictional basis on which the judgment was rendered. Second, the prohibition against reopening the merits of a judgment should not prevent the requested state from examining whether the essential procedural requirements for recognition and enforcement have been satisfied. These may include proper notification of proceedings, the opportunity to present a defense, the finality of the judgment, and compatibility with fundamental principles of the requested state's legal order. Thirdly, we would appreciate clarification as to whether the proposed article is intended to establish an autonomous treaty-based enforcement regime, or whether recognition and enforcement would continue to be governed by applicable national legislation and existing international agreements. Our delegation supports the objective of strengthening access to remedies. Nevertheless, we consider that such an objective must be pursued through a legally balanced framework that preserves fundamental judicial safeguards. We therefore recommend further examination of this provision before its phrasing is finalized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Chair-Rapporteur [1:39:51]:

Thank you to Qatar. I give the floor to Malaysia.


Malaysia [1:40:02]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Regarding Article 12, Malaysia would like to seek clarification on the proposed provisions concerning mutual legal assistance and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment. First, on mutual legal assistance, Malaysia notes that such cooperation is generally governed by domestic law and where applicable, existing bilateral or multilateral treaties and arrangements. In this regard, Malaysia would appreciate clarification on how the proposed provision would operate alongside these existing legal frameworks, particularly in relation to the scope of assistance, applicable procedures, and grounds for refusing assistance. Second, regarding the proposed Article 12.5, Malaysia notes that the Chair suggested redrafting uses mandatory language concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment that meet certain conditions. In this regard, Malaysia would appreciate clarification on how the proposed obligation would operate alongside existing domestic laws and applicable international treaties and arrangements, particularly where these provide for specific grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement. Malaysia looks forward to further clarification while reserving its position on the proposed provisions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


Chair-Rapporteur [1:41:18]:

Thank you very much, Malaysia. I give the floor to Saudi Arabia.


Saudi Arabia [1:41:29]:

Regarding Article 12.1, we view, Chair, that reinforcing mutual legal assistance is an important element for international cooperation, provided that this is conducted with respect to domestic legal frameworks of countries and disparities among these frameworks, provided also that it's based on graduation and flexibility. The proposed drafting expanded the scope of obligation for articles from six to eight and from four to eight. This makes that relevant regulations and resolutions on victims' rights should not be related to the scope. Therefore, we suggest an addition of the word "in line with their internal and domestic legislations" to Article 8. while keeping the scope in the draft for articles from 4 to 8. We should include a new paragraph 2.1 bis, which allows the country receiving request to refuse it if implementing the request will compromise its security and its order or its immunities and immunities for properties or other interests of the concerned states, or if it runs counter to its legislation and in line with international relevant conventions. With regards to 12.5, we consider that the recognition of foreign judgments are to be regulated by national legislation is mutual original and international relevant treaties this is out aside the scope of mutual assistance mutual legal assistance this was mentioned in the previous consultations therefore we suggest repealing and scratching the new paragraph entirely thank you chair


Chair-Rapporteur [1:43:59]:

I thank Saudi Arabia. The State of Palestine, you have the floor.


State of Palestine [1:44:07]:

Excellency, colleagues, good afternoon. The State of Palestine thanks you, Excellency, for the proposals on Articles 12 to 24. We believe that mutual legal assistance is the procedural backbone of this instrument. Without it, victims of transnational harm cannot obtain evidence serve documents or enforce judgments. We welcome the extension of article 12.1 to articles 4 to 8, the use of widest measures and a new paragraph 12.5 on recognition and enforcement of judgments, which draws on the third revised draft as we proposed last year. In article 12.1, we can accept the deletion of the phrasing on private parties as long as article 12.1 clearly reflects the duty for states to ensure that state parties protect and fulfill the right to information in an expedited manner, ensuring access to all relevant evidence needed for effective, prompt, and impartial investigations and judicial or other criminal, civil, or administrative procedures. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [1:45:23]:

I thank the State of Palestine. GCC, you have the floor.


GCC [1:45:38]:

Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor again. Regarding the new paragraph 12.5, This raises concerns for us, particularly with regards commitment to recognizing judgment by a tribunal and its implementation and member states, while allowing reconsidering the proceedings without being clear on refusing the implementation. Our concerns run deeper because the paragraph relates to Article 9. meaning that national legislations get involved in international affairs of which is not relevant. This might jeopardize national security and national property. Therefore, we suggest the deletion of 12.5, or at least limiting it to judgments related to administrative and civil judgments, and that Recognition and implement should be tied down to clear conditions, including quid pro quo, and also in addition to not affecting the impunity of countries in line with international law. Chair, the revision of 12 should ensure international cooperation that respects national legislation is which that our observation be reflected in the records of this meeting and thank you


Chair-Rapporteur [1:47:19]:

chair I thank the GCC Cuba you have the floor


Cuba [1:47:31]:

thank you very much chair for my delegation it is important to establish frameworks for cooperation related to mutual legal assistance, as well as recognize the decisions by course across the borders in order to ensure the protection of human rights of victims. In this respect, I'd like to join what other delegations said to recognize the efforts of the chair to make these amendments. Now, before committing ourselves to any specific position on this issue, we have to clearly define the scope of this legally binding instrument that will give greater clarity to our proposals and greater consistency throughout the text. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [1:48:33]:

I thank Cuba. the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom.


United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [1:48:36]:

Thank you very much for these proposals.

Whilst we do broadly support the objectives of articles 12.1 and 12.5 on mutual legal assistance and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, including for the reasons articulated by those such as the Philippines and Palestine, for now we do reserve our position on these articles pending further consideration. On 12.1, we note here that we have previously supported proposals

from other states, including Japan, to insert reference to the

extent consistent with domestic legal systems to assist in practical workability and to tie this obligation to existing international obligations.

On 12.5, what we would wish to avoid here is duplication, and we would like to better understand how it

work between States. Thank you.


Chair [1:49:43]:

Thank you, United Kingdom. I give the floor to the Islamic Republic of Iran.


Iran (Islamic Republic of) [1:49:54]:

Mr. Chair, Iran shares the concern expressed by previous delegations regarding Article 12. We believe the mutual legal assistance must fully respect the

sovereign of the state, their national legal system, and existing international agreements.

Regarding the proposed new paragraph 12.5, Iran considers that the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment should remain governed by national legislation and applicable international agreements.

We therefore support the proposal to delete paragraph

12.5 in its entirety.

Thank you.


Chair [1:50:46]:

Thank you very much to the Islamic Republic of Iran. I give the floor to Uruguay.


Uruguay [1:50:55]:

Thank you, Chair. My first words are to clarify that our comments on the various proposals are to be seen as preliminary comments, the aim being to make a constructive contribution to the debate. This does not prejudice the final position that Uruguay might take once we have seen the text as a whole. Relating to the specific proposals on article 12.1, Uruguay believes that international cooperation is particularly important to ensure effective access to justice, particularly as related to abuse committed or connected to TNCs. We particularly value the extension of articles 4 to 8, particularly with regard to rights and protection of victims. That could be particularly useful in transnational cases that require co-operation between different states. We therefore believe the proposal could make mutual legal assistance more effective and make it easier to access effective remedies. We could therefore go along with the proposal suggested by the chair rapporteur. Moving on to 12.5, we believe that it is necessary to recognize foreign rulings as part of an effective access to justice. However, this is a new provision which has significantly legal implications, and therefore we believe that its implementation must continue to be reviewed, particularly the way that it is connected to national legislation and applicable international law, amongst other things. Thank you.


Chair [1:52:51]:

Thank you. Egypt has the floor.


Egypt [1:53:00]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

just joining the discussion on the proposed language and as highlighted in our general comment it's understanding that the interactive dialogue on the non-paper shall not prejudge that the negotiating text is the updated legally binding instrument and in this regard and on the proposed language in 12.1 we welcome the expansion of the articles within from to be from article 4 to article 8 and on the new proposed paragraph 12.5 I think and also please the legal expert can correct me if I'm wrong here I think as soon as the formalities required in the state party have been completed this entails that if any domestic law or any sovereign considerations can be identified as the formalities required And in this regard, I th we would we would think of deleting the the qualifier of those formalities. as in the third revised draft. So it reads, "After any State Party, as soon as the formalities required in the State Party have been completed, and shall not permit the reopening of the merits of the case." So we propose here that we delete, "Provided that such formalities are not more onerous or in fees to the end." So to leave formalities up to each State Party to assess according to their domestic law and legal requirements.

Thank you, Mr. President.


Chair-Rapporteur [1:54:54]:

Thank you very much. Are there any further states that wish to take the floor? I recognize South Africa.


South Africa [1:55:04]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We thank you and add our -- or echo the thanks expressed by other delegations on the proposals under consideration, which have been modeled on opening provisions of articles on mutual legal assistance of key multilateral UN conventions. South Africa supports in principle the suggestions that have been made. Mutual legal assistance remains critical in furthering legal cooperation and in guaranteeing access to justice and effective remedy within the context of the legally binding instrument. We join Brazil in expressing a preference to mention of the role of competent authorities in facilitating and considering such requests for mutual legal assistance. We believe this terminology clarifies the reciprocal nature of the obligation and will assist to facilitate more clearly such requests in accordance with domestic procedures. We support the widest measure of mutual legal assistance as currently worded and its extension to Articles 4 to 8. South Africa continues to study Article 12.5. specifically in the context of the 2019 HCCH judgments convention, but we support in principle its inclusion at this stage. Thank you, Chair.


Chair-Rapporteur [1:56:39]:

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much. Are there any further states asking for the floor? I recognize China.


China [1:56:57]:

China would like to thank the Chair for the amended text containing the proposals. China believes that mutual legal assistance is a very important component of the instrument. So China would like to make some preliminary comments. China agrees with many observations made by other delegates, which is mutual legal assistance should respect sovereignty, domestic law, and existing international legal framework. In addition, in the 12.5, which is a recognition of foreign court judgments. We believe we have to have further discussions before deciding whether it can be included in the text. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [1:57:51]:

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much. Do I have a request for the floor from another state at this stage? If not, we can move on. In order to hear from civil society and other relevant stakeholders, I give the floor to ESCR Net.


ESCR Net [1:58:24]:

Thank you, Mr Chair. Greetings.

I speak on behalf of ESCR Net and represent the Asia Indigenous Peoples' Pact.

Despite claim by states and cooperation of the progress

in delivering on UNDPs, indigenous peoples continue to suffer widespread and systematic violence of our collective rights, including our indigenous individual rights, including we observe the issue around criminalization, attacks, killings of indigenous people human rights defenders. We are facing an aggressive expansion of mining, including transition minerals, and deep sea mining, so-called renewable energy projects, including offshore wind farm, monoculture, agribusinesses, infrastructure project, biofuel plantation in our territories, often without respect our right to self-determination and without our free, prior informed consent right.

Mr. Chair, in relation to Article 12,

We stress that state must not withhold information essential for corporate accountability.

As it stands, this article remains weak by allowing excessive discretion to refuse legal assistance.

The article should more explicitly underscore states' duty to protect, fulfill the right to information,

in an expedited manner, ensuring access to all relevant evidence needed for effective, prompt and impartial investigation and judicial or other criminal, civil or administrative proceeding.

Article 12.

Could provide legal clarity as it draws on precedent from the UN Convention against Corruption and the UN Convention against.

Transnational organized crime, both of which foster cooperation in addressing cross-border harm.

In summary, Article 12 must reinforce mutual legal assistance, including recognizing customary institution, to ensure that accountability mechanisms are genuinely effective across borders. I thank you, Mr. Chair.


Chair-Rapporteur [2:01:01]:

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much. I give the floor to the International Organization of Employers.


Speaker 66 [2:01:12]:

I speak jointly on behalf of IOE and USCIB. On article 12.1, it is essential that its provisions can be implemented in accordance with domestic legal systems and existing international obligations. Regrettably, we do not believe that the suggested redrafting moves in this direction. We welcome the removal of the reference to requests from private parties. However, extending mutual legal assistance to Articles 4 to 8 and to the implementation of these measures broadens the obligation considerably. The redrafting seeks to align with the UN conventions on which this article is modeled, yet does not import their safeguards, such as grounds for refusal, nor adequately protect confidential information and trade secrets. We are particularly concerned by the new article 12.5. This proposal would require any judgment of a court having jurisdiction under this instrument to be recognized and enforced as soon as formalities are completed, with no review of the merits. In practice, a claimant could obtain a flawed judgment in one state and enforce it against a company's assets in any other state party. Combined with the broad jurisdictional provisions of Article 9, this would encourage forum shopping and deprive states of the ability to refuse enforcement on grounds of public policy or due process. The support expressed during the consultations was only for a separate provision limited to civil matters. The proposed Article 12.5 contains no such limitation, and the matter is already addressed by dedicated instruments. We therefore call for the deletion of Article 12.5. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [2:03:01]:

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to International Transport Workers Federation.


Speaker 68 [2:03:12]:

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the Global Labour Movement. Before getting to the proposal, I wanted to state that we align ourselves with the general statement delivered earlier by ECSR Net, Feminist for a Binding Treaty and the Global Campaign, members of the Treaty Alliance. We join this broad coalition of civil society and social movements in calling on all States to engage in the process at this decisive stage with ambition and courage to deliver the strongest possible LBI. With respect to proposal 1 concerning article 12.1, we welcome the extension of references to articles 4 to 8, going beyond articles 6 to 8, and thereby ensuring that mutual legal assistance also covers rights and protections of victims. As we just heard earlier from Uruguay, this extension will prove critical, for example, in investigations and litigation in transnational cases. We also welcome the inclusion of a new article 12.5, which is fundamentally based on article 12.10 of the third revised draft, speaking to the question of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Over the past 11 sessions, we have constantly raised the issue of workers facing obstacles in having judgments enforced in cross-border supply chain cases, which we consider to be a fundamental aspect of access to remedy. Therefore, we see the inclusion of this new paragraph as a significant improvement to the text. Certainly, while other international instruments may cover recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial matters, this new article will broaden the scope to cover criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings pertaining to corporate human rights abuse. Chair, while there is no proposed new text related to article 12.4, we note that proposal 18, which seeks to delete the definition of relevant state agencies. Therefore, we trust that a corresponding change will be made to ensure that the provision speaks to the roles of judicial and non-judicial state agencies in meeting the obligations under the article. So we're talking about consequential amendments. Finally, Chair, we would also recommend explicit language dealing with the settlement of disputes where requests for assistance are denied on good faith grounds together with an obligation to provide such reasons in writing. We think that this might be especially important where relevant existing bilateral and multilateral mutual agreements are not in place. I thank you, Chair.


Chair-Rapporteur [2:05:48]:

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much. I give the floor to Friends of the Earth International.


Speaker 70 [2:05:59]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I speak on behalf of Friends of the Earth International and the International Collective in Support of Fishworkers, members of the Global Campaign. Article 12 is a cornerstone of the UN LBI, as without effective mutual legal assistance and meaningful cooperation between states, many of its other provisions risk being deprived of their legal and practical effect. The protections provided by the treaty risk remaining theoretical with victims and affected communities facing significant obstacles in translating their legal rights into tangible and concrete justice and reparation. With regard to Article 12.1, the Chair indicated that the proposed new wording aims to extend the scope of the measures to which it applies. We welcome this objective as well as the reference to the widest measure of mutual legal assistance. However, we believe that the current proposal does not fully achieve this aim and that restoring the wording of the third revised draft would be more effective in this regard. The wording of the third revised draft is more complete and explanatory. It incorporates important qualifiers that offer stronger protections for victim and affected communities, and it does not restrict the scope of mutual legal assistance to measures that are relevant to specific article, but extends it to all measures in relation to any claim covered by the legally binding instrument. I would also like to specify that allowing states to refuse mutual legal assistance requests, as suggested by some delegation, would defeat the very purpose of this treaty, as it would perpetuate the status quo under which states are already free to grant or deny such assistance. Lastly, we note that the Chair has not proposed replacing relevant state agency with judicial and non-judicial mechanism throughout Article 12, as he suggested in the proposals concerning Articles 4 to 11. We hope that this omission does not reflect an intention to retain different terminology, but rather that the Chair intends to ensure consistency by applying this replacement throughout the entire text. The term "relevant state agencies" is overly vague and could be exploited by transnational corporations to sidestep courts, making it harder for affected people and communities to get justice. We therefore support and call for this replacement to be made in Article 12 as well as throughout the entire text of the treaty. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [2:08:41]:

Thank you very much. I give the floor to the Institute for Policy Studies.


Speaker 72 [2:08:50]:

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the Institute for Policy Studies and the team members of the Global Campaign. Enforcement of sentences and court orders is one of the most crucial elements of access to remedy. As illustrated by the Chevron case in Ecuador in 2018, Obtaining a favourable judgment is not enough and does not necessarily guarantee effective reparation to victims, as transnational corporations can leave a country without leaving any assets behind. Victims and affected communities could therefore be left with favourable judgments that remain merely symbolic, with little or no prospect of enforcement, rather than meaningful access to justice and effective remedy. Guaranteeing enforcement of judgments abroad is essential to ensuring effective access to justice and reparations for victims and affected communities. In this regard, we welcome the Chair's proposed article 12.5, which essentially restores the language of article 12.10 of the third revised draft. It would be useful to also restore the language of article 12.11 of the third revised draft, while deleting subparagraph e. We also ask for the re-inclusion of article 12.5 from the third revised draft. This article addresses procedural challenges in conducting transnational corporation investigations and accessing extraterritorial jurisdiction. This list is not exhaustive. but it identifies key procedural elements that warrant attention and on which State parties should commit to cooperate under this LBI. We nonetheless recommend deleting references to domestic law as these create an opening to contest compliance with the article. Finally, we wish to emphasize that one of the fundamental purposes of this treaty is precisely to establish an international legal framework that harmonizes domestic legislation in the most favorable way to victims and affected communities. Invoking compliance with domestic legal systems or arguing that the enforcement of foreign judgments depends on the jurisdiction and laws of the state in which the judgment was rendered as some states and the corporate lobbies of TNCs are doing in this room, misses the very purpose of the treaty. The objective is to overcome the limitations that exist in domestic legal frameworks by establishing universal binding obligations that ensure effective access to justice and remedy across jurisdictions. Allowing states to rely on the differences between domestic legal frameworks to limit their obligations under the treaty would undermine its effectiveness. perpetuate the legal obstacles that the LBI is intended to address. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


Chair-Rapporteur [2:11:56]:

Thank you very much. I believe this was the last speaker on our list. We've had a fruitful discussion. which allowed us to clarify the different positions on the alternative proposals submitted. As we try and find consensus, be assured that I've taken good note of all proposals and positions expressed, both by states and by civil society organizations and relevant stakeholders. I thank you very much for your participation and your constructive comments. We will now move on to considering the second proposal for reformulation. This relates to Article 13.2, sub-paragraph c. This relates to awareness raising on the rights of victims as one of the measures of international cooperation provided for in the instrument. Article 13 recognizes the importance of international cooperation, including technical and financial assistance and capacity building. and sees this as essential elements for the effective implementation of the instrument. It's an article which provides for states to adopt appropriate and effective measures both with other states and in conjunction with international and regional organizations competent in this area and with civil society. Subparagraph specifically refers to awareness-raising on victims' rights, and it refers to the obligation of States pursuant to the instrument. In order to put forward this draft, we took into account the proposals and comments made during the 11th session and during the intersessional thematic consultations. They included the proposal to change the scope of the obligation through a reference to the development of activities on awareness raising and also referring to the proposals to add language to promote respect for human rights in transnational business activities. Also a reference to access to reparation and effective participation. During the thematic consultation, it was also indicated that while current language on victim rights could also include access to reparation, a specific reference, if included, would bring greater clarity and would avoid different interpretations of the same text. While redrafting, we bore in mind Article 8.1 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, also Article 42 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and Article 13 of the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence. as well as principles 2 and 25 of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. We would emphasize that the commentary to this latter instrument emphasizes that guaranteeing an access to reparation requires States to provide public knowledge and understanding of the available mechanisms and how to access them, as well as providing information about the support to do this. On this basis, the chair-rapporteur is putting to the consideration of the working group a reformulation with three specific changes being made. First of all, we emphasize that this is a public awareness. Secondly, the terminology has been brought into line with the expression abuse of human rights in or human rights abuses in the context of business activities, which is the language used in the rest of the instrument. Thirdly, We are specifically mentioning access to reparation amongst the rights of victims that we want to raise awareness about. In this way, awareness raising would encompass state obligations on all human rights abuses in the context of business activities, regardless of whether they are of a national or transnational nature. We should also point out that other proposals made during the 11th session on this section, proposals relating to the terminology on violations and abuse, and the reference to affected persons and communities, are connected to cross-cutting issues which are tackled in the relevant proposals to the definitions of article 1 and something that we'll be considering later during this session. Well, having provided this introduction, I'm happy to open the floor for state comments on the proposal 2. to reformulate article 13.2 sub-paragraph c. Are there any requests for the floor from States? I recognize Cuba.


Cuba [2:18:43]:

Thank you very much, Chair. With respect to article 13.2, we approve of the addition to the text, which recognises the importance of international co-operation, including financial and technical assistance and capacity building, in order to truly implement and realise the potential of this LBI. Assistance should cover implementation to ensure that the provisions of this draft can be implemented. So after proposal, we should include the word implementation in the third line. We also have a doubt about the language used. We are not sure whether the words as applicable should be where they it's placed at the moment or whether it should be at the end of the sentence in order to be clearer. We also believe that as applicable could be replaced by as appropriate, if applicable. So, on sub-paragraph c, we believe that the scope of the document should really be mentioned in this part of the document. not just in this paragraph, but everywhere in the text, every time that there is a reference to business activities, I think this should be replaced with activities of transnational corporations. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [2:20:28]:

I thank Cuba. Philippines, you have the floor.


Philippines [2:20:35]:

Mr. Chair, the Philippines strongly supports language and human rights education, which is a longstanding core advocacy of the Philippines, particularly the Human Rights Council. The Chair's proposal aptly clarifies and expands the scope of public awareness initiatives to include access to remedy for victims of human rights abuses. This proposed language very broadly aligns with our constitutional mandate provision for the Philippine Commission on Human Rights to conduct human rights research and education programs, as well as with relevant articles of the CRC and CRPD to which the Philippines is a state party. On technical cooperation and capacity building, we believe that national ownership is key to an impactful and sustainable capacity building program on human rights. As such, technical cooperation must be on the request and with the consent of interested States. This proposed provision should therefore not create an obligation for a State to accept a technical cooperation offer from any entity. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [2:21:43]:

Thank you, the Philippines. I give the floor to the State of Palestine.


State of Palestine [2:21:51]:

Thank you, Chair. We welcome the redrafting of 13.2, including reference to access to remedy, and ask that it refer expressly to affected peoples and communities and to abuses and violations. It should also address the obstacles that unilateral coercive measures contrary to international law create in practice. Sanctions, financial blacklisting, and overcompliance by banks can block legal aid, the sharing of evidence, and the payment of reparations. There must therefore be language on enhancing international cooperation to eliminate obstacles to such access and awareness, including those resulting from unilateral coercive measures contrary to international law. In 13.2, chapeau, we reiterate the importance of including affected or potentially affected individuals and communities, in addition to civil society and relevant international and regional organizations. Finally, states must ensure that multilateral institutions they belong to do not undermine this instrument, along the lines of Guiding Principle 10. and cooperation with private sector must be subject to safeguards against the interference and influence of commercial and other vested interests, consistent with Article 16.6. Thank you, Chair.


Chair-Rapporteur [2:23:25]:

I thank the State of Palestine. I give the floor to Brazil.


Brazil [2:23:34]:

Thank you, Chair. We do appreciate how you propose to adjust 13.2, particularly the inclusion of access to remedy is very much welcome. And your introduction regarding terminology and discussions of definitions is well noted, but we should just stress that we would still prefer in this paragraph to include human rights abuses and violations. And we had proposed during the intersessionals adding a new subparagraph F to the 13.2. I don't know, it wasn't reflected in the summary, so I don't know if I could reinstate it or repeat it here, or maybe this is more appropriate to be done Thursday afternoon when we discuss the rest of the text. Just wanted to note there was a subparagraph regarding strengthening institutional capacities to identify mitigate and remedy disproportionate impact of business activities on people of vulnerable groups, yada, yada. But we can, I just wanted to note this now and then maybe raise it again on Thursday. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [2:24:47]:

I'd like to thank Brazil. Saudi Arabia, you have the floor.


Saudi Arabia [2:24:58]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. With regard to 13.2, the Kingdom welcomes the proposed formulation of subparagraph C on raising public awareness. There's no problem for us to refer to remedies. The Kingdom reiterates that international cooperation must be based on a voluntary basis. must be balanced as well, that takes into consideration the priorities and the development needs of countries. Any financial arrangements must also be voluntary. In this context, 13.2 did not include any reference to the voluntary nature of the measures. including contributing to the International Victims Fund referred to in subparagraph h. Therefore, we propose to add the language "on a voluntary basis and on the basis of national priorities and development needs" at the beginning of the paragraph. This must also apply to any paragraph that has to do with the contribution of the fund. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


Chair-Rapporteur [2:26:32]:

Thank you very much. Uruguay, you have the floor.


Uruguay [2:26:40]:

Thank you very much, Chair. We take a positive view of the amendments that you're proposing. to article 13.2c, especially the direct reference to effective remedies and that will be subject of public awareness. We believe that the inclusion of this language will strengthen the text because the relevant mechanisms should be complemented with sufficient information so that victims know about their rights, different remedies and the way to access those remedies. So this is why we can support your proposal. Thank you, Chair.


Chair-Rapporteur [2:27:19]:

I thank Uruguay. I give the floor to Islamic Republic of Iran, to be followed by the United Kingdom.


Iran (Islamic Republic of) [2:27:33]:

The proposed reference to access to remedy in paragraph 13.2, however, we believe that raising awareness alone is not sufficient.

International cooperation should also address practical obstacle that prevent victim from accessing effective remedies.

In this context, Iran support the concern raised by the delegation of Palestine regarding obstacle to victims access to effective

remedies.

We therefore propose adding the following language at the end of the paragraph 13. point 2C, and enhancing international cooperation to address obstacles to such access, including those arising from unilateral coercive measures.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.


Chair-Rapporteur [2:28:33]:

I thank the Islamic Republic of Iran. I give the floor to the United Kingdom.


United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [2:28:40]:

Thank you for the amendments to article 13.2.

The UK can support this provision. We consider that the access to remedy is an important pillar of addressing business-related human rights abuses and understand the importance of raising the issue.

Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [2:29:11]:

I thank the United Kingdom. Any other state wishing to take the floor at this stage? Japan, you have the floor.


Japan [2:29:29]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the sake of coherency in our comments in the text, I would like to make some brief comment on 13.1, although it was not a part of the proposal by the Chair Reporter. We suggest replacing "States Parties shall cooperate with" with "States Parties are encouraged to cooperate" for the same reason as Article 12.3. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [2:29:59]:

Thank you very much, Japan. Any other State wishing to take the floor? If that is not the case, then we will the floor now to speakers representing civil society and other relevant stakeholders. I give the floor to Sudwind.

Microphone, please.


Speaker 92 [2:31:17]:

seems to be working.

All right.

Here also.

Okay, here.


SUDWIND [2:31:36]:

Sorry, and Thank you, Chair. I am speaking on behalf of the Austrian association SUDWIND and the International Electropower Partners, being an international project consortium against forced labour in the electronic supply chain. We welcome the Chair Rapporteur's suggested redrafting of selected provisions and want to comment specifically on the Article 13. We agree with the objective of the suggested language of the Chair Rapporteur, We further suggest that article 13 includes a direct and specific reference to UN agencies and the ILO among the relevant international and regional organizations states can partner with when discharging their obligations to undertake appropriate and effective measures to cooperate internationally. Likewise, together with civil society organizations, Article 13.2 should include international trade unions and international trade unions federations. Thank you, Chair.


Chair-Rapporteur [2:32:46]:

Thank you very much. I give the floor to... ...Transport Workers Federation.


Speaker 95 [2:32:58]:

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the global labour movement. With respect to proposal 2, we agree with the suggested new language. And as we just heard from a colleague from Sudwind, when it comes to partnerships with relevant international and regional organizations and civil society, we would continue to reiterate the importance of having a specific reference to trade unions, given our specific role representing workers at the company, national, regional, and international levels. Finally, Chair, we think that it also be important to consider the impacts on this provision of the proposed change, the definition of access to remedy, to consider whether consequential amendments may be necessary here as appropriate. I thank you, Chair.


Chair-Rapporteur [2:33:55]:

Thank you very much. I cede the floor to the International Organization of Employers.


Speaker 97 [2:34:09]:

Thank you, Chair. I speak jointly on behalf of IOE and USCIB. The global business community fully recognizes the importance of raising public awareness, including on access to remedy. However, awareness raising will not only make a difference on the ground if it goes hand in hand with capacity building and effective guidance from states to businesses on how to respect human rights, as set out in UNGP 3C. We also regret that the redrafting does not take up the proposal supported by a number of delegations, as reflected in the summary report, to include the private sector as a partner under Article 13.2 and to involve business, in particular SMEs, in technical cooperation and capacity building under Article 13.2. Employers and business membership organizations are key partners in advancing responsible business conduct on the ground, and their role should be recognized in this article. More broadly, international cooperation should focus on strengthening governments and the rule of law and on tackling corruption and informality, the root causes of many human rights challenges. States should also retain sufficient discretion to determine the forms of cooperation in line with their national priorities, as several delegations noted. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [2:35:33]:

Thank you. I give the floor to International Federation for Human Rights.


Speaker 99 [2:35:50]:

I speak on behalf of ESCRnet and the International Federation of Human Rights. We welcome the proposal to broaden both the context and focus of awareness-raising activities under Article 13.2. In the final text of the treaty, we must ensure that affected or potentially affected individuals and communities are involved in international cooperation activities alongside relevant international and regional organizations and civil society who are expressly mentioned in the chapeau of Article 13.2. As expressed during the intersessional meetings, the involvement of affected individuals and communities in international cooperation activities is essential for ensuring that these activities are grounded in the reality and lived experience of these individuals and communities and are therefore more effective in achieving their ends. For this reason, we would like to reiterate our earlier recommendation that Article 13.2 explicitly requires States Parties to promote and facilitate the participation of affected or potentially affected individuals and communities in deliberations, decision-making, and implementation of activities and efforts of international cooperation, including all those listed from paragraph a to d. It is essential that the revised treaty text also adds, as part of state parties' duty of international cooperation, an obligation to ensure that regional or multilateral institutions that they are part of do not limit or undermine their ability to implement the LBI and fulfill its purposes, and enhance their ability to discharge their duties under the LBI. A new clause could draw from UNGP 10, which explicitly states, When acting as members of multilateral institutions that deal with business related issues, states should seek to ensure that those institutions neither restrain the ability of their member states to meet their duty to protect, nor hinder business enterprises from respecting human rights. and encourage those institutions to promote business respect for human rights and help states meet their duty to protect against human rights abuse by business enterprises, including through technical assistance, capacity building, and awareness raising. Finally, we believe that the text of Article 13.3 of the third revised draft should be reintroduced to ensure that state parties that are in a position to do so provide financial, technical, or other assistance through existing multilateral, regional, bilateral, or other programs for the purposes of realizing the aims of this LBI. Thank you, Chair.


Chair-Rapporteur [2:38:31]:

Muchas gracias. Thank you. I give the floor to DKA Austria.


DKA Austria [2:38:40]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On behalf of DKA Austria, ECIPART International, and the Human Rights Clinics of UFMG and PUC-Parana in Brazil, I will address our suggestions on Article 13 as follows. We consider international cooperation essential to ensuring the effective implementation of this instrument, particularly in the context of transnational business activities and environmental harm. We propose deleting the expression as appropriate in Article 13.2 in order to

broaden the scope and applicability of partnerships with relevant international and regional organizations and civil society. Furthermore, we agree to the Chair's proposal to add public to the Article

13.2 as well as the inclusion of access to remedy.

In addition, we propose adding, quote, "ensuring that such information is child-friendly," unquote, at the end of the

sub-paragraph C to strengthen the child-sensitive dimension of international cooperation and ensure the information concerning victims' rights is

accessible to this group and foment the participation and the pursuit of their own rights.

Finally, recommend adding a new sub paragraph on cooperation in environmental protection, climate change mitigation, and sustainable business practice

as follows.

Promoting cooperation on environmental protection, climate change mitigation, and sustainable business practices to prevent human rights and ecological harms. Given the transnational nature of environmental harm, states must be able to cooperate effectively to prevent business-related human rights abuses and protect the rights of present and future generations. Thank you, Mr. Chair.


Chair-Rapporteur [2:40:30]:

Thank you. I give the floor to him. Sit him, please.


SETIM [2:40:40]:

Both members of the global campaign. Cooperation between states is essential to guarantee the effective implementation of the treaty. In that regard, Article 13 will contribute to the attainment of the objectives and principles mentioned no less than the chair. access to justice for victims, legal certainty, and the ability to obtain justice beyond the jurisdiction of the entities in the global value chain of a TNC. Article 13.2c speaks of raising awareness about the rights of victims and affected peoples and communities. They will then become aware that there is a venue where they can seek redress of grievances and ask for damages and injunctions when local courts are unable to dispense justice. However, we note omissions in the Chair's proposals. It speaks of victims without mentioning alongside affected communities. Also, it refers to human rights abuses without mentioning violations, although this addition appears in other places in the Chair's proposals, like on article 14.3 and last year's proposals on articles 6 to 11. We believe that this treaty should focus on TNCs and other business enterprises of a transnational character. in all of its provisions and therefore refer to business activities of transnational character instead of only mentioning business activities. Additionally, we support Colombia's proposal for article 13.2E and call for this to be integrated in article 13.3. This paragraph provides that State Parties in a position to do so should provide financial, technical, or other assistance through existing multilateral, regional, bilateral, and other programs for purpose of realizing the objectives of the LBI. Aside from facilitating access to justice through such assistance, we hope that the State Parties who assist will eventually understand the challenges faced by victims and affected communities in developing countries, we hope that they will understand the problems that make it virtually impossible for victims to obtain justice in their very own countries, hence the recourse to the LBI to obtain justice. We hope that the international assistance will make developing countries attractive only to responsible investors and that TNCs will operate in these countries, including through their contract manufacturers, all manufacturers, subcontractors, et cetera, in a manner that is respectful of human rights, labor rights, and the environment. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [2:43:37]:

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much. That was the last speaker on my list related to Article 13.2, I think. all states, and representatives of civil society and other relevant stakeholders for their suggestions and comments. And of course, I took due note of all of those comments and suggestions. Let us now turn to the third proposal related to amending the text related to Article 14.3. With a view of reviewing the placement and the language used in this provision. And the purpose is to clarify it in order to ensure it reflects the principle of non regression and the application of the legally binding instrument. This paragraph reaffirms the rule that. No provisions of the future instrument will affect national, regional, or international standards that are more conducive to the respect, protection, promotion, and realization of human rights in the context of business activities. And also to ensure that there's access to justice and effective redress for victims. During our 11th session that took place in October 2025, in response to a question on the connection between paragraphs 14.3 and 14.4, it was recalled that the relationship between earlier and subsequent human rights treaties is governed by principles such as non-regression, most favorable provision, complementarity and harmonious interpretation. For this reason, the suggested amendment to the text reflects several of the language proposals that were presented during the 11th session and the comments that were made during the thematic consultations during the intercessional period, in particular the transfer of the provision to Article 16, the deletion of the reference to promotion, and the inclusion of the notion of reparations and violations. However, the replacement of the expression "more conducive to with a more neutral reference was not accepted since this would move the provision away from non-regression. And also during the thematic consultations, several delegations spoke in favor of keeping the current text. As additional references, Article 5.2 of both international covenants of 1966 and paragraphs 2.11 and 18 of the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of IHL were taken into account. As a result, the Chair Rapporteur suggests moving this provision to Article 16 on implementation, preliminarily identifying it as Article 6.7 with the following modifications. The expression "more conducive to" is maintained as the core of the non-regression clause. so that the instrument is not applied in ways that reduce levels of protection that have been already achieved. We also delete the reference to promotion, since the practice of treaty bodies considered to be included in the obligation to fulfill. It is also specify the reference to regional or international treaties is limited to those that are applicable. And the reference to domestic legislation is replaced by a reference to domestic law. Finally, reparations are included together with effective reparation in line with the basic principles and guidelines, which address both concepts in a differentiated manner, as well as violations together with human rights abuses. Now, with this introduction, I open the floor First, to states that would like to make comments on these proposals related to Article 14.3.

I recognize Qatar.


Qatar [2:50:02]:

With respect to the proposal to relocate Article 14.3 to Article 16.7, Our delegation recognizes the importance of ensuring that the implementation of the proposed instrument does not diminish protections already available under applicable domestic or international law. We therefore appreciate the intention to clarify the principle of non-regression. We also consider that the inclusion of access to justice, effective remedies and reparations contributes to a more complete understanding of the protective purpose of the provision. Nevertheless, we would welcome further clarification of the standard used to determine which legal provisions are considered more conductive to the protection of human rights. In our view, the provision should preserve existing legal protections without creating uncertainty concerning the relationship between different domestic and international legal regimes. We can therefore support the proposed relocation in principle, subject, however, to further refinement of the substantive wording. Thank you, Mr. Chair Rapporteur.


Chair-Rapporteur [2:51:25]:

Thank you very much, the State of Qatar. I get the flow to the GCC.


GCC [2:51:42]:

Regarding paragraph 14.5, we stress again our concerns about proposed wording which calls upon states to reinterpret multilateral and mutual conventions, including those related to investment, and they should be aligned with human rights relevant instruments and this instrument. This wording raises questions about the link between the instrument and the current and future treaties. This could be understood as creating a hierarchy which makes investment and trade treaties subjected to interpretation that are in line with this instrument and other instruments as this not binding to the concerned states. In line with Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, The instrument is binding only to state parties. Therefore, countries which are party to this instrument might incur any contradiction between its commitments under this instrument and commitments under other conventions. This might impact the investment and investment environment. Therefore, we propose that we stipulate clearly that should not compromise the current treaties on environments, uh, treaties on investment. The consent principle should be stressed on, and that countries should not incur responsibility due to instruments of which they are not parties. We hope that this should be reflected in Article 14, so that to reinforce the link between the instrument and other treaties and ensure contracting engagement. We wish that our remarks be reflected in the records of this meeting.


Chair-Rapporteur [2:53:54]:

Future thank you very much the GCC I now get the floor to Saudi.


Saudi Arabia [2:54:12]:

Arabia with regarding to now regression which is proposed to be transferred to Article 16. In principle, we do not oppose transferring 14.3 to Article 16. However, we notice that the proposed wording added the word "violations" together with "abuses." This reintroduces the concept of violations attributed to States in a judgment relevant to behavior of business enterprises. This is contrary to the distinction which the Chair's proposed want to keep in Article 1.3. Therefore, we suggest the deletion of violations in this context. Thank you, Chair.


Chair-Rapporteur [2:55:17]:

Thank you very much, Saudi Arabia. I recognize the State of Palestine.


State of Palestine [2:55:24]:

Just a quick clarification, are we doing both 14.3 and 14.5? 14.3, thank you. Thank you, Chair. As we said last year, Article 14 is fundamental to the integrity of this instrument. It must ensure that the human rights obligations prevail whenever they conflict with other agreements, particularly trade and investment treaties. Without it, measures states take to protect the human rights remain open to challenge by corporations invoking commercial instruments before tribunals where affected communities have no standing. On article 14.3 to become 16.7, We welcome the addition of reparations and violations in the paragraph. We can support moving it to Article 16, providing its substance is kept non-regression, more conductive to customary international law reparations and abuses and violations. To stay consistent with the international human rights instruments, we propose referring not only to domestic law, and applicable regional or international treaty, but also regulations or customs. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [2:56:58]:

Thank you very much, State of Palestine. I recognize the European Union.


EU [2:57:05]:

Thank you very much.

The proposed relocation of article 14.3 to article 16, in our view, would help clarify its.

Function of preserving higher levels of protection.

At the same time, we still see a need for clarifying its interaction with article 14.4, particularly where an earlier treaty on the same subject provides greater protection.

In this context, we would like to recall that Article.

30 of the Vienna Convention on the Laws of the Treaties distinguishes whether the parties to the respective treaties are identical or not. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [2:57:54]:

Thank you very much, European Union. I recognize Brazil.


Brazil [2:58:05]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair Rapporteur. Indeed, Article 14 is central to defining the relationship between this instrument and other fields of international law. So Brazil reaffirms the fundamental principle of the primacy of human rights obligations over conflicting provisions in bilateral and multilateral trade, investment, and financial agreements as reflected in the preamble or proposal and it was co-sponsored by Brazil and Colombia, PP11/BIS. Indeed, accepting commitments to human rights, sustainable development and responsible corporate conduct should not stifle business and investment. On your concrete proposal, we support the addition of reparations on 14.3. as well as the conducive to and violations as well. And we could support moving it to Article 16. Thank you for your efforts, Mr. Chair.


Chair-Rapporteur [2:59:13]:

Thank you very much, Brazil. I recognize Cuba.


Cuba [2:59:23]:

Thank you, chair-rapporteur. On article 14.3, we support the idea that moves it to article 16. We can also support the proposal to leave the paragraph unamended, only adding in the fourth line, after "business activities", "and national corporations". All of that is to make sure that we are consistent throughout the text. We have a positive view of including provisions that strengthen the access to remedies by victims of human rights committed by transnational corporations. We think the language does strike the right balance, which places victims' rights at the forefront of our considerations.


Chair-Rapporteur [3:00:22]:

Thank you.

Thank you, Cuba. I recognize Uruguay.


Uruguay [3:00:34]:

Thank you for giving me the floor once again. When it comes to the proposal, our understanding is that the new LBI must improve previous levels of protection and that it should not affect protection that is afforded at the national or international level. We welcome the adjustments that have been made, including the reference to reparations and the fact that there is reference to abuse and violations. We think it would be a good idea to move this article because it would strengthen its character as a clause of non-regression. So we are ready to support the chair rapporteur's proposal. Now a final comment, we want an express reference to the promotion of human rights to respect, promotion and fulfilment of human rights. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [3:01:45]:

Thank you, Uruguay. I recognize Iceland.


Iceland [3:01:55]:

Iceland supports moving the provision to article 16, which clarifies its function as a non-regression clause. We also support retaining more conducive to, which, as reflected in paragraph 43 of the summary report, best safeguards that function. Then we would only want to note that the redraft now refers to abuses and violations. And in order to ensure terminological coherence across the instrument, we do suggest that this choice of wording await the discussion on Article 1.3 later this week, where the distinction between these two concepts is addressed. That's all. Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [3:02:55]:

Muchas gracias.

Thank you, Iceland. United Kingdom has the floor.


United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [3:03:05]:

We would like to reserve our position on this article as we continue to consider.

It, but the UK recognizes that the basic principles and guidelines address remedy and reparation as related but distinct concepts. and that reparation may form part of an effective remedy where appropriate. However, our preference is to retain a focus on access to effective remedy in line with the UNGPs.

While recognizing that reparation may be one possible form of remedy depending on the circumstances.

For that reason, we suggest removing the reference to reparations in this article.

Thank you.


Chair-Rapporteur [3:03:52]:

Thank you, UK. Are there any further requests for the floor from states at this stage? If there are no requests for the floor, we can now hear comments from civil society and other relevant stakeholders. I give the floor to the International Transport Workers' Federation.


Speaker 125 [3:04:26]:

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the global labour movement. With respect to proposal 3, we support the suggested new placement and the new formulation aimed at strengthening and clarifying the principle of non-regression. on the understanding that customary international law is also implicitly covered by the provision, noting also the suggestion made by the State of Palestine in this regard just earlier. And that will be all for this proposal. Thank you, Chair.


Chair-Rapporteur [3:05:08]:

Thank you. I give the floor to the International Organization of Employers.


Speaker 127 [3:05:17]:

Thank you, Chair. I speak jointly on behalf of IOE and USCIB. On proposal three, we note that the redrafting now refers to applicable treaties, which is a step towards greater clarity. Whether placed under Article 14 or Article 16, however, the substance remains the issue. We do not question the principle that this instrument should not lower existing levels of protections. But the test of more conducive to is subjective. It lacks legal certainty and risk divergent interpretations as to which provision should prevail. The clause also retains the reference to activities of transnational character, which continues to cast doubt on the true scope of the instrument. This provision should therefore be redrafted to provide legal certainty.


Chair-Rapporteur [3:05:59]:

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Very well. We have now concluded the participation in this exchange between States, civil society and other relevant stakeholders relating to proposal 3 on article 14.3. and the question of whether it should be moved under Article 16. I thank everyone for their contributions, and we have taken good note of all comments made. Distinguished delegates, participants, we can now continue with proposal 4, a redrafting proposal relating to article 14.5 on the relationship between the LBI and other bilateral or multilateral agreements. including trade and investment agreements. Its aim is to simplify and clarify the scope of this provision and its alignment with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This is a paragraph which aims to ensure consistency in the interpretation and implementation of the future instrument with other international legal systems. in such a way as we see no diminishing or limiting of the capacity of states to fulfill their obligations in the human rights sector. In this respect, we must remember that the expression "issues relevant to" can be understood to refer to matters related to the goal and aim of the instrument without limiting itself to trade and investment agreements. On the other hand, the expression "their capacity" can be understood as referring to the States Parties. Additionally, the 2006 report of the International Law Commission on the fragmentation of international law indicates that Article 31.3 of the Vienna Convention offers a framework for the systemic integration of proceeding norms from different systems. This all being said, I would also remind you that during the intersessional thematic consultations, some delegations expressed their concern that the current draft could be interpreted as being subordinate to existing agreements. whereas other participants emphasized the need to ensure that such agreements should not undermine the fulfilling of human rights obligations. What we also saw was the proposal of different qualifying phrases, such as, for example, "to the extent permitted by international law". It was observed that if the aim is to ensure that the provisions are aligned with the relevant provisions of international law, then a reference to the Vienna Convention could suffice, avoiding formulations which affect the purposes of the paragraph. Now, articles 31.3c was considered as an additional reference, as was article 42 of the Vienna Convention and the guiding principle 9 on maintaining a national legal margin, which was appropriate. And we also considered paragraph 13 of general comment 24 of the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Committee. Bearing in mind all the above elements, the chair-rapporteur is putting to the working group for consideration a redrafting that includes the following elements. First, the suggested new draft establishes that States parties will ensure that relevant bilateral and multilateral agreements, including regional or subregional agreements and trade and investment agreements, will be interpreted and applied in a manner that is compatible with their obligations pursuant to the instrument and to relevant human rights instruments. The notion of compatibility offers a known standard in international law, and one that is sufficiently clear to tackle the relationship between different legal provisions. Secondly, the proposed new draft states that the capacity that we are referring to is that of states parties to the instrument. That avoids any confusion and also heeds a request for clarification that came forward during the 11th session. Thirdly, the proposal deletes the qualifier "existing". in order to ensure that the provision refers to all relevant agreements and it eliminates any redundant references to the protocols of the instrument. Now, having provided that introduction, I now offer the floor firstly to States that wish to make any comments to proposal 4, to redraft article 14.5. But looking at the clock, I would invite you to begin this exchange of views tomorrow morning, but please do already include your name on the speakers list if you so wish. And that way we could have a flowing debate which is not interrupted. So distinguished representatives, delegates. This brings to a close our afternoon meeting. I therefore adjourn the second meeting of the 12th session of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Respect to Human Rights. See you tomorrow, and thank you, one and all.