2nd Meeting, 11th Session of Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations

Buenas tardes.

Good afternoon. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, I hereby declare open the second meeting of the 11th session of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Respect to Human Rights. Following on from this morning's meeting, we will continue with the list of speakers of civil society organizations and other relevant stakeholders who have requested the floor to make general statements. Following on with the list. I now give the floor to International Federation for Human Rights. You have the floor, please.

I deliver this statement on behalf of the International Federation for Human Rights, FIDH, and 24 of its member organizations and partners. We are witnessing a world where human rights are under severe attack, and climate change represents a serious threat to people and the planet.

In this context, while FIDH welcomes the progress made on the content.

And form of the discussions in the last two years, all of us in this room have the responsibility to advance quicker towards the adoption of a robust treaty to protect human rights and the environment from corporate harm.

In recent years, many states have developed regional and national legislative initiatives to regulate corporate behavior and global value chains. We welcome that these encouraging developments constitute an important step towards the.

Adoption of an international and ambitious legally binding instrument.

In order to do so, however, States must.

Ensure that the treaty contains solid provisions on prevention, liability, applicable law and jurisdiction. Additionally, we stress the importance of guaranteeing effective access to justice and protections for individuals and communities impacted by business activities around the world.

Individuals and communities like those whose concerns FIDH has raised in this forum since the creation of this working group.

In light of the recent worrying trends of deregulation seen at regional and national levels, the mandate of.

This group is all the more crucial to.

Strengthen the protections of people affected daily by business activities, including in particular environmental and human rights defenders.

We thus call on states to engage.

Constructively during this session, and we remain committed to provide our detailed inputs throughout the week. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I now give the floor to FIAN International.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to make this statement on behalf of the Alliance for the Treaty and all of the networks that make it up, the Global Campaign of Feminists for a Binding Instrument and Young Friends of the Treaty. We are the most broad-based alliance in favour of this instrument. committed to a strong binding treaty that ends corporate impunity and guarantees justice for affected peoples everywhere. We reaffirm our full support for this intergovernmental process and thank the Chair for advancing it. We particularly appreciate the constructive engagement of many States, particularly from the Global South, that continue to uphold the spirit of resolution 26/9. Around the world, we are witnessing a surge in violent conflicts and the devastating consequences of unregulated corporate power. From the genocide in Gaza, where the military-industrial complex continues to profit from occupation, siege, apartheid and mass atrocities, to the humanitarian catastrophes unfolding in many other territories and countries, transnational corporations continue to extract profit from human suffering and colonialism. As Special Rapporteur Albanoze rightly pointed out in her last report, corporations are complicit in illegal occupation, apartheid and now genocide in Palestine. Arms producers, extractive industries and private security companies all play a direct or enabling role in grave violations of human rights and humanitarian law. They exemplify how corporate interests fuel war, occupation and systemic violations of human rights with total impunity. Any international treaty that fails to confront such realities will betray its mandate. As such, we call on all states to engage in the process with ambition and courage. We need a treaty that establishes binding obligations for transnational corporations. effective preventive measures, robust enforcement mechanisms, and comprehensive and gender-responsive remedies for affected peoples and communities, both within and beyond borders. It must address the interlinkages between corporate power, environmental destruction, repression against human rights defenders, climate injustice, and gender equality, amongst others, including through reparations, sanctions, and divestment from abusive industries. These dimensions must be integrated across the treaty and not treated as peripheral issues. However, we remain gravely concerned by the ongoing efforts to weaken or delay this process. Corporate lobbies and financial actors continue to promote proposals that would dilute the main pillars of the future binding treaty and replace accountability with insufficient due diligence measures and other toothless mechanisms. This working group must remain a negotiating group led by states and civil society, not a corporate negotiation table. In relation to the methodology and ongoing discussion on the Chair's suggested redrafting of Articles 4 to 11, we note that the proposals were shared very late. We therefore call on the working group to ensure sufficient time to thoroughly review and discuss the suggested proposals and allow for written comments to be submitted until at least February 2026. We urge you that this process must not be rushed for the sake of political expediency, nor watered down to accommodate corporate or geopolitical pressure. A weak or symbolic instrument would only legitimise the status quo of impunity. We emphasize the importance of ensuring that civil society, affected communities, human rights defenders, social movements, and trade unions remain at the heart of this process. Their lived experiences and proposals are indispensable in crafting a treaty that responds to realities on the ground. We stand ready to continue engaging constructively with states and allies, including parliamentarians and trade unions. to ensure that this treaty delivers what the world urgently needs: justice, accountability, and the reaffirmation that human rights are non-negotiable and must prevail over profit. Thank you, Chair. Thank you.

I give the floor to the Institute for Policy Studies.

My name is Soltrum Ovila, and I speak on behalf of the Institute for Policy Studies and the American Association of Jurists, member of the Global Campaign to Reclaim People's Sovereignty, Dismantle Corporate Power, and Stop Impunity, a global coalition of more than 250 organizations, social movements, and affected communities by activities of transnational corporations. We know that our global capitalist economy is built on systemic violations of human rights for the sake of profit. In every corner of the world, you will find corporations bending, avoiding, or just plainly violating the rules to make the highest margins of profit. From Bangladesh to Palestine, from Congo to Serbia, wherever there are resources to exploit or profits to be made, you will find transnational corporations recklessly exploiting people and destroying nature. We need to put an end to corporate impunity. We need a binding treaty that holds corporations accountable globally. After hearing the EU today on the floor, we wish we could say, as Europeans or those living in Europe, that the EU is leading by example. After all, Europe is the continent that is always lecturing the world about democracy and human rights. And yet, reality is very different. The European Commission is in a ruthless deregulation campaign. watering down workers' rights and environmental protections in Europe and abroad. Even the EU's corporate due diligence law is being destroyed before even entering into force. At the same time, the EU signs free trade agreements that only serve to protect corporate interests. It's a new form of colonialism. So today, we call on states that call themselves compromise with human rights, such as the EU, the UK and others to stop siding with corporate lobbies and secure the negotiations for an ambitious, legally binding instrument. It is time to make human rights, not corporate rights, binding. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to Corporate Accountability International.

I'm speaking on behalf of Corporate Accountability, which is a member of the Global Campaign to Dismantle Corporate Power and put an end to impunity in our territory. Our transnational corporations continue to operate in a legal architecture that protects them and guarantees profit, including when it destroys human rights and ecosystems. In Argentina, the most recent example is the investment regime for big investments adopted last year, which provides fiscal stability for 30 years and allows to repatriate utilities. In practice, this regime subordinates environmental, labour and social rights to the interests of investments. These schemes are supported by bilateral investment treaties and the possibility to go to ICSID the court of the World Bank, as happened with Repsol and could happen again with campaigns such as Posca, Alkema and Levent, who are operating in the north of Argentina. Meanwhile, indigenous communities and peasant communities that defend the water and life are criminalized without access to justice or reparation and don't have and binding international framework or international jurisdiction that can protect them against businesses that violate their rights. As such, Argentina would like to reaffirm the need for a legally binding international treaty which puts an end to the architecture of impunity and guarantees effective responsibility of transnational corporations.

Thank you very much, Chair.

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

I'm speaking as part of a collection of lawyers who are part of the global campaign. What can be said so that the words reach reason? We are speaking...

One moment, please. I'd given the floor to Friends of the Earth International. And then I will give the floor to the peace brigade later. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm speaking on behalf of Friends of the Earth International, members of the global campaign. Chair, at the outset of this statement, I would like to express my solidarity with the Ecuadorian people, which is being seriously repressed and tortured by the Ecuadorian government, which is acting in consultation with transnational corporations. 11 years ago, we started this process of adoption of Resolution 26/9. At that time, the Indigenous Peoples of the Amazon described how Chevron was destroying the Amazon. But above all, we were speaking about how the peoples were seeking justice in the various courts of the world and that we were unable to find it. We've been doing this for 11 years and we are here seeking justice and reparation that we cannot find anywhere. This struggle demonstrates the gigantic legal void that exists in the world, which only guarantees impunity to transnational corporations. This means that while we've been fighting for a legally binding instrument here that puts an end to the impunity of businesses outside in the country and in many parts of the world, people continue to die because of the crimes of these trans national corporations. We need to be clear that this treaty is here to defend lives, not businesses. A few days ago, I was explaining the treaty process to an indigenous people. After I had done so, the elders and many others who don't even know how to read or write came to the following conclusions. They said that if we had an applicable, strong treaty, transnational corporations would be more careful and would avoid violating many rights around the world. Chevron would not have gone to the United States rather than the Ecuadorian courts. The United States would have handed down, the states like Canada, Brazil and Argentina would have handed down sentences in favour of peoples of Ecuador. Chevron would not have been able to go to international arbitrage with which it's now asking three billion people, three billion dollars from the people of Ecuador. This message is so clear The people who are suffering from these issues are those who know best how to solve them. We believe that this week is crucial in this process. In this week we should be clear that the future treaty should not only focus on the responsibility of transnational corporations, rather it should also include explicit reference to value change of these businesses. We need to be clear that we are prohibiting the forum non conveniens and including the forum necessitatis. This should be done every time there is a link between transnational corporations which are being pursued for violations in order to guarantee access to justice for the victims and communities affected effectively and in a timely manner. This treaty should be an instrument that prevents TNCs from submitting governments and countries to blackmail. We need to make sure that we create, we should also be debating on the creation of an international justice court that is fully accessible to the people, communities and people who are victims of corporate crimes. If it doesn't, it will be not be a fruitful process if we do not do so. Finally, we need to recall that it's necessary We should recall rather that resolution 26/9 is very clear as to the mandate of this group. The future treaty should be focused on transnational corporations, not on local businesses. Indeed, as we've said many times over, TNCs are important stakeholders in the economy and their activities are a source of direct or indirectly multiple violations of human rights. The treaty should put an end to corporate impunity. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to the Peace Brigade International. Thank you.

Chair, I do beg your pardon for the previous error. I was saying that as a Colombian organization, as part of the global campaign, we were wondering what we can say so that our words reach hearts and minds. We are making We are speaking on behalf of those people who are urgently calling for the treaty to be adopted. It's more urgent every day so that impunity doesn't continue to be part of our backdrop. We support multiple people affected by business conduct and we have seen the most terrible forms of impunity. That which is seen when businesses are being pursued for violating rights and legal sentences have been handed down to them, but these Sentences only give an illusion of justice because the level of corporate capture and abuse of power is so high that it means that achieving reparation and satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition is just an illusion. We have used all of the legal tools possible to achieve justice. And there are sentences declaring businesses liable. These cases have been won domestically, but we've not achieved justice. We've not managed to make this justice real for indigenous peoples, black communities, and others who are suffering this damage. As a sign of the impunity, the gall, and the folly, we can look at the multinational Glencore, with its headquarters here in Switzerland. The Wayuu indigenous people in Colombia is denouncing an open and flagrant non-compliance with the legal sentence emitted from the highest possible Colombian court, we wonder. Over 30 years ago, businesses managed to create their own justice system that allow them to go to states when they are damaged, but it doesn't seem to work the other way around. That's why we are insisting that the binding treaty cannot be linked to the guiding principles of the United Nations. We've seen their severe limitations on addressing human rights abuses committed by transnational corporations. The treaty, as was mentioned by the delegation of Colombia, move forward in the paradigm of standards and laws for transnational communities in order to move forward on human rights and to give us real tools for access to justice, the importance of maintaining the scope of the instrument on transnational corporations and other businesses with a transnational aspect is extremely important because responsibility needs to fall at the top of the chain. and we need these companies to pay for the abuses that they are earning money off of. We need an architecture which directly refers to, for example, the fact that states will promote and guarantee the elimination of investment dispute settlement mechanisms. This is why we presented the Campaign for Article 14 proposals. We need to use these provisions to correct the structural asymmetry. The Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, David Boyd, concluded that it was an unjust, anti-democratic and dysfunctional mechanism, the ISDS, this is incompatible with the challenges that we're facing as humanity. and said that the business groups and human rights, that the system was also unbalanced, inconsistent, irresponsible. We need to strengthen the sovereignty of states. As Brazil said, the concern that developing countries shouldn't be economically damaged Well, currently they're shouldering the cost of reparation that businesses should be paying. There are two roads that we can go down, the well-being of the world or being servile to private interest of transnational corporations. Thank you very much, Chair.

Gracias.

Thank you. I now give the floor to Centre Europe, Terre Monde.

Thank you very much. I'm speaking on behalf of CETIM. Chairman, rapporteur, for several decades now, thanks to many agreements on trade which were implemented by great powers, only a few Transnational corporations now have power over a broad swathe of the global economy, which allows them to ignore human rights. The resolution which created the mandate for this group aimed at ensuring that human rights were respected by transnational corporations and their value chains. However, it cannot just be the state who is responsible alone for a simple reason. No state currently is able individually currently to counter the activities of TNCs given their cross-cutting legal nature which goes beyond borders. We need to make a clear distinction between TNCs and states and their responsibilities when it comes to human rights. States have general responsibility general responsibilities to respect and implement human rights on their national territory and the territory under their jurisdiction. They also have an obligation to not violate human rights, the human rights of other people, in particular with regard to TNCs, they must respect human rights, labor standards and environmental standards when it comes to their business activities. In other words, the parent company of a TNC must respect the norms I have just mentioned and ensure that businesses that are part of their value chain also respect them. For more than 50 years now, all attempts within the UN to ensure that there is a legal framework for TNCs have not worked out. If states wish to subject to law these organisations, which go beyond all legal, operational constraint. Mention they do so, including to serve interests that counter general interest. Thank you very much for your attention.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to United States Council for International Business.

Chair, Excellencies and Delegates, I speak on behalf of the United States Council for International Business. the sole representative of American business at the OECD, the UN, and the ILO. Chair, U.S. business is firmly committed to the UNGPs, including businesses' responsibility to respect human rights. However, on a substantive level, we have serious concerns about the draft treaty as it fails to align with the UNGPs. The high liability provisions would not encourage companies to prevent, mitigate, and remediate adverse human rights impacts. Instead, this draft treaty encourages a cut-and-run approach. This will force de-risking of supply chains and market exits, thereby causing economic loss, decrease in trade, and job losses in developing countries. This is not to be taken lightly. As we have recently seen in some regions, there are emerging concerns about transforming soft law into hard law. This backlash has highlighted the unintended consequences of a punitive approach and ultimately the lack of impact on the ground when policies do not effectively address root causes of human rights violations. This is exactly the concerns that we have been raising throughout these negotiations. From a process perspective, it should be noted that for the 11th year in a row, the treaty process has failed to genuinely consult with the business community. We were also surprised by the unannounced publishing of new language proposals just a few days before this session. This is unfortunately not giving us sufficient time to assess the proposals and contribute constructively. In conclusion, Chair, we are severely worried about the treaty's impact, and we remain ready to engage with governments. We underscore our commitment to respecting human rights.

I thank you.

Thank you very much. I now give the floor to JK Austria.

Thank you. On behalf of DK Austria, ACPAT International, the Human Rights Clinic of UFMG, and the Human Rights Clinic of PUCPR, we thank the Chair and all delegations for the continued engagement in the strengthening this important instrument. We have seen crucial amendments that are in line with a child rights-based approach, for instance, in PP9 on the recognition of the best interest of the child in the context of business activities. While discussions this week focus on articles 12 to 24, we underline that these provisions must reflect the overarching and comprehensive principles for the protection of human rights. From our perspective, these are the recognition of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment and a child rights-based approach across the treaty. though these are not yet sufficiently reflected in articles one to three. The aforementioned are essential for protecting children from business related human rights abuses and environmental harms. We welcome the progress made, but much remains to be done to ensure that the treaty provides real protection for children and intergenerational equity. wish to highlight three key recommendations. First, Article 4, guarantee child-friendly access to justice and child-sensitive remedies. Children must be able to seek redress safely and meaningfully with their privacy protected and their voices heard. Second, Article 6, require mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence, including child rights impact assessments and genuine participation of children in decision-making that affects them. Third, articles eight, nine, and 10, the accountability, states must exclude the forum non convenience doctrine from the TTT's jurisdictional framework and ensure flexible limitation periods that reflect the long term and intergenerational nature of many harms to children. Beyond these articles, we call on States to ensure the environmental harm is fully recognized as a human rights abuse, that children's rights are mainstreamed throughout the treaty, and that remedies are timely, inclusive, and effective. Only by integrating children's rights and environmental protection at every stage can the LBI become a truly binding and transformative instrument, one that ensures accountability and justice for today's and tomorrow's children. Our organizations will continue to submit specific text proposals aligned with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its general comments. We invite all delegations to consider these in the spirit of building a treaty that truly leaves no child behind. Thank you.

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

Chair, distinguished delegates, good afternoon. For 11 years, the International Organization of Employers has actively and constructively participated in this negotiation, investing time, expertise and resources. Throughout this period, we have consistently submitted written inputs, advanced joint business position, and called on the Chair and Secretariat for meaningful engagement with the business community. We have done so even at times where we have suffered harassment and threats by certain civil society organizations, as we did last year. Yet, after more than a decade, our legitimate concerns remain largely unaddressed. Despite this, we are here once again because a treaty on business and human rights without business involvement would lack both legitimacy and impact. However, on behalf of IOE and our network representing over 50 million companies worldwide, most of them SMEs, we must underline that our continued participation in this process should not be taken for granted. This process still faces fundamental challenges. Around the globe, governments increasingly recognize that effective legislation and simplification efforts must enable responsible business conduct while safeguarding competitiveness and productivity. And this should be done by reflecting business realities and engaging meaningfully with businesses. These lessons must guide this process moving forward. IOE and the global business community we represent remain fully committed to advancing respect for human rights. We believe this process can get back on track, but only through a radical shift through four essential points for progress. First, meaningful consultation with businesses. A treaty developed without genuine business engagement will lack both legitimacy and impact. We urge the Chair to ensure business perspectives are fully reflected in the next draft. Second, full alignment with the UNGPs. The current draft diverges from the UNGPs, resorting to a punitive approach and shifting responsibility from states to businesses and portraying companies as violators rather than partners. Third, a legally sound, practical and principle-based outcome. The draft's vague definitions, unrealistic due diligence obligations and open-ended concepts create legal uncertainty. Provisions on extraterritorial jurisdiction, personal criminal liability, and reversal of the burden of proof risk undermining international law and deter investment. Fourth, avoiding unintended negative consequences. Overly prescriptive and complex obligation risk harming growth, trade, and supply chain resilience, while undermining national sovereignty and judicial integrity. Chair, we urge you to take these points into account to ensure meaningful progress. The elaboration of the fifth draft, so the next draft, offers a critical opportunity to reset this process, to simplify, to engage, and develop an instrument that is realistic, balanced, and supportive, supportive of business contribution to sustainable development and respect for human rights. Chair, I also want to finish my statement by kindly asking you that no companies are named and shamed in this room. I think this is the usual practice of the House, and I would encourage you to make that clear in today's meeting. Thank you.

Thank you

very much. I now give the floor to Malacca International.

Thank you very much, Chairman. For several years now, indigenous peoples, persons of African heritage and also campesinos in Putumayo have been ringing alarm bells when it comes to the activities of extractive industries such as the Minera Cooper company from Canada. The social fabric has been undermined and there's been an adverse pressure showed on indigenous leaders currently were at a critical stage. Mining interests, the weakness of institutions and the presence of armed actors have made our town and the area around it a theater which is majorly at risk, majorly a risk for those who would like to be human rights defenders, in particular defenders of society and the environment. We saw the hosting of COP16 on biodiversity, whose slogan was making peace with nature. The commitment that was expressed at that international community, international conference, standard of contrast with domestic policies which favor extraction in the Amazon and other areas where biodiversity is significant. Copper mining, even if it is relevant for the global energy transition should not be done to the detriment of basic human rights. The Colombian Amazon is a storehouse of global biodiversity, and destroying it undermines people's rights and speeds up climate change. It undermines peoples who have historically defended the Amazon. We would propose that Colombia, with the support of the international community, launch An environmental transition which is based on a circular economy with copper recycling rather than extracting it from areas which are sensitive in terms of the environment. An energy transition should not be based on new environmental infringements.

Thank you. I give the floor to Global Forum for the Defense of the Less Privileged.

Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, the Global Forum for the Defense of the Less Privileged expresses its profound concern over the continuing role of certain corporate actors in situations of armed conflict and repression. We continue to witness the supply of weapons, financing, extractive operations, and surveillance technologies that contribute to serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Recent findings by UN experts and civil society organizations reveal that corporate activities continue to exacerbate debate human suffering. Arms and dual-use technologies are still supplied despite evident risks to civilians. Financial networks have facilitated the circulation of resources to actors implicated in drastic abuses, and extractive and private security companies have devastated vulnerable communities already living in poverty and insecurity. These practices deepen inequality, displace the most vulnerable, and erode trust in the international rule of law. We therefore call upon this Council to act on the following key recommendations: First, support the resolution 26/9 in advancing a legally binding instrument to regulate transnational corporations and other business enterprises under international human rights law. Second, urge all member states to adopt mandatory human rights and conflict-sensitive due diligence for companies and financiers. Third, ensure that victims, mainly the poor, marginalized, and displaced communities, have effective access to remedy, justice, and reparation. Ladies and gentlemen, the continuation of armed conflict and repression is fueled by those who profit while ignoring accountability. Delays in acting against the corporate complicity slows progress towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and leave the less privileged waiting upon assistance simply from our promises on paper. Corporate accountability must be real, enforceable, and immediate. No enterprise should be allowed or privileged to profit at the expense of human lives and dignity. And I would like to remind this Council, dignity is inherent. It is a birthright, not something to be earned. I thank you.

Thank you very much.

That was the last speaker. on the list of NGOs and other relevant stakeholders. I would like to call on all of those present, as corresponds to an international meeting of this nature, to use the duly respectful language required and to abstain from statements that are aimed at other individuals. This brings us to the segment of, brings us to the end, rather, of the general statements segment. So we now move on to the next item, which is plenary negotiations in accordance with the programme of work. Continuation of the State-led Negotiations, Articles 12 to 24. Distinguished delegates and representatives, we will therefore take back up the negotiation of the draft of the legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises. with respect to human rights, we will take back up from where we left off in our 10th session in December 2024. So, we will start to read through and negotiate articles 12 to 24 of the treaty to facilitate understanding. In dealing with this group of articles, In general, what we can say is that these are operative paragraphs setting out a structural framework upon which the instrument is based. These provisions not only set out the operative foundations, they also set out cooperation and coordination mechanisms between states in order to guarantee effective application at all levels. Additionally, they also promote mutual technical assistance and ensure that victims of abuses of human rights linked with business activities can access effective remedy. Through this legal framework, the draft instrument promotes a functional design or structure which facilitates us making concrete various aspects of the instrument, making sure that the commitments that we've undertaken are translated into tangible outcomes. In general, they set out the legal and institutional structures that will enable states to systematically comply with the legally binding instrument. Now let's move to considering Article 12, relating to mutual legal assistance, which says that they should provide this assistance in all areas referring to the instrument. This is contained within Article 628. This assistance should be based on mutual assistance mechanisms that already exist to which they are parties. To this end, it is established that States should set out and strengthen channels of coordination and communication, including with relevant State agencies, in order to promote the exchange of information on elements relating to execution. And should also draw on lessons learned from business involvement in human rights abuses. Additionally, it sets out that States should guarantee that their competent authorities have access to information, support, training and resources, as well as considering setting out or strengthening bilateral or plurilateral agreements on mutual assistance. With that introduction, I would now like to open the floor to states that who wish to take the floor with comments or proposals on article 12 of the updated draft of the treaty. I would like to recall that there is no speakers list for states so I would now like to ask you to indicate your desire to take the floor by raising your flag for those of you in the room. I would like to ask those delegations wishing to make proposals with specific text or wording to speak slowly so that they can be properly recorded. It would be very helpful if specific text proposals could be sent to the secretariat in advance of statements. The secretariat has informed me that the draft legally binding instrument, in its updated version, will be edited in real time and published on the website at the end of this session. For civil society organizations and other relevant stakeholders, the list of speakers for a specific article will be closed immediately after States have finished intervening. So, I now give the floor to States on article 12. Uruguay has the floor first.

Thank you, Chair. I would like to make a general comment on 12, and then I have two specific comments. I believe that the current drafting is appropriate, because States should provide maximum assistance to criminal, civil and other types of proceedings, as under article 8. It also contains information provision training, etc., to state agents and sets out the possibility of getting information repositories and clear contact in order to make sure that requests are dealt with more quickly and efficiently. With regards to 12.1, you require support, prompt investigation in relation to Article 6 to 8 in order to facilitate access to proof and evidence. It should also include a mention of due process, data protection, and guarantees of jurisdiction in order to protect confidentiality and other rights. We could add, without prejudice to procedural guarantees and data protection as set out in the domestic law of the relevant state. In English, it would be, to due procedural guarantees.

And data protection provide for in the domestic law of the requested state and in its international obligations.

With relation to 12.4, Uruguay agrees with replying relevant state agencies with competent judicial and non-judicial authorities. This would avoid gaps and it also sets out the scope of non-judicial, for example, if we're talking about competent administrative authorities with a specific mandate or other situations. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Uruguay, for those general comments and the more specific ones as well. I just have a question. the specific drafting proposals could you perhaps take repeat those slowly so that the secretariat could note them down and reflect them on the screen

so on 12 1 we were proposing to add as in Spanish without prejudice to procedural guarantees and data protection guarantees set out in the domestic law of the state and their international obligations. And the English would be.

To the procedural guarantees and data protection provided.

For in the domestic law of the requested state and in its international obligations.

Could you just read it once again to see if it's reflected properly on the screen?

Without prejudice to the procedural guarantees and data protection provided for in the domestic law of the requested state and in its international obligations.

The Spanish would say substantially the same thing, without prejudice to the procedural guarantees and data protection provided for in the domestic law of the requested state and in its international obligations. As regards to 12.4, we agreed with replacing relevant state agencies with competent judicial and non-judicial authorities.

Yes, exactly.

So we'll be replacing relevant state agencies with competent judicial and non-judicial authorities. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And I'll give the floor to Brazil.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair Rapporteur. Brazil would like to propose an addition to Article 12.2. That would be 12.2 bis, which would read: "Each State Party shall designate one central authority responsible for coordinating and exchanging all the communications regarding the State's international cooperation mutual legal assistance with respect to this, and then in parentheses, legally binding instrument. And the adjustments to be followed to the paragraph, given our proposal, the next one will be 12.3. after communication between their designated central authorities. And in this case, the relevant state agencies and counterparts in other states parties will be erased. erase up to state parties. The next one is 12.3 B. And this sub article would read to facilitate effective coordination between there. designated central authorities. So we propose to erase relevant state agencies and replace it with designated central authorities. And the rest, the remaining of the article remains the same. And then in 12.4, 12.4A. delete relevant state agencies to replace it with designated central authority, authorities. And in 12.4, information can be exchanged between designated central authorities, in this case, the leading also relevant state agencies. For Brazil, this language is more in line with administrative structures of all the countries and is it consistent with our recommendations in the previous session. Thank.

You.

Thank you very much. European Union, please.

Many thanks, Mr. Chair. On behalf of the EU, I would like to share some comments that primarily aim to present the EU approach and experience in addressing the substantive issues covered by the draft LBI. On article 12, we would like to share that judicial co-operation in civil matters between the EU and third States is carried out mostly within the framework of the Hague Convention excuse me, the Hague Conference on Private International Law, of which the EU, alongside its member states, is a member. In terms of specific instruments of cooperation, all EU member states are parties to the Hague Service Convention, and most of them are also parties to the Hague Evidence Convention. As for criminal matters, Judicial cooperation between EU member states and third states takes place based on bilateral mutual legal assistance arrangements to the extent they exist with specific partner countries. Judicial cooperation also takes place under multilateral conventions, such as the Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention and certain UN conventions. Article 12.2 of the draft LBI makes reference to existing mutual legal assistance arrangements, if any exist. We would like to know and better understand the relationship between those arrangements and the LBI. Specifically, we want to clarify whether mutual legal assistance among the parties under Article 12 would be governed by those arrangements, including as regards the cooperation duty pursuant to Article 12.3. Also, it would be important that EU internal relationships are subject to an explicit disconnection clause. And last, we would like to clarify whether the provisions of Article 12 could include grounds that would allow a party to refuse cooperation, noting that relevant safeguards on this matter are customary in multilateral or bilateral mutual assistance treaties. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I now give the floor to Palestine.

Thank you, Chair. The State of Palestine attaches particular importance to Article 12 as the procedural backbone of the instrument, because without having a clear mandatory framework for mutual legal assistance, the right to an effective remedy remains theoretical, especially with corporate conduct and assessment across borders. Now I move to concrete language proposals. In paragraph 12.1, We propose replacing greater measures with widest measures, as was in the third revised draft, to align with standard treaty language that emphasizes the breadth and scope of cooperation as reflected in established UN conventions. That's 12.1. It's not on the screen.

Sorry. May I ask that the text be put in the screen so we can all look at-- OK, thank you. Please continue.

It's 12.1 to replace greatest with widest in measures in the first line. We also propose inserting after paragraph 1 a new paragraph restoring the operative list of measures contained in article 12.5 of the third revised draft specifying that the scope of assistance shall include identification, freezing, seizure and confiscation of assets, the obtaining and production of banking, financial, corporate and constructional records, and the service and execution of judicial documents. I will not the whole 12.5 from the third revised draft because it's very long, so it's just the same one. And additionally, we support restoring explicit provisions on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, which are former articles 12.10 and 12.11, so that remedies are implemented whenever assets are located and without relitigating the merits. And finally, The article should retain the safeguard that states shall not decline assistance on the sole ground that the request involves fiscal matters or bank secrecy, as reflected in also previously numbered article 12.13 of the third revised draft. We believe that these elements would maintain article 12 as robust, comprehensive and operational framework for cooperation and enforcement within this treaty. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much. And I give the floor to Japan.

Thank you, Chair. Regarding 12.1, we consider it important to make clear that the acceptance and implementation of judicial cooperation can only be undertaken within the scope permitted by each country's domestic legal framework. Japan proposes inserting after the word afford, the first sentence, the phrase, comma, to the extent consistent with their domestic legal system, comma, to ensure that this principle is explicitly reflected. Regarding 12.3, with regard to the provisions referring to bilateral cooperation, collaboration, and information exchange, we note that the use of them use of the term shall is inappropriate. Such undertaking should be determined based on the needs and the policy priorities of the respective national authorities. Therefore, they should remain within the discretion of each state. Accordingly, Japan considers that the chapeau of Article 12.3 should be revised to read States parties are encouraged to take necessary steps which would appropriately reflect the voluntary and cooperative nature of such measures. Thank you.

Gracias.

Thank you. I would thank the Secretariat if they could put the text back on the screen again and keep it on the screen. The secretariat has not managed to reflect the first proposal of Japan. If Japan would be so kind as to repeat it at a slower pace, please. Japan, please.

Okay. Regarding 12.1, after the word "afford", we would propose inserting to the extent consistent with the domestic legal system. Regarding 12.3, Japan considers that the chapter of Article 12.3 should be revised to read, "States parties are encouraged to take necessary steps, which would appropriately reflect the breadth and the corporate nature of such measures." Thank you.

Gracias.

Thank you. I now give the floor to Mexico.

Thank you very much, Chair, rapporteur. With regards to 12.1, we would like to make a suggestion. We would like to exchange private parties for victims in this paragraph, and I believe that we can support Palestine's proposal, changing greatest for widest. Then moving on, we are interested in Brazil's proposal for 12.2 bis. Naturally, we need to consult on this with our capitals, but a priori, we believe that it's in line with discussions in previous sessions of this working group. We also had a similar proposal to Uruguay on the judicial and non-judicial authorities for within this proposal. we believe that we could in um we could support this but it would be a preliminary support for 12.4

just a moment please says the chair so I'd ask the secretariat to indicate Mexico support for the Brazil's proposal in 12 point could you just move the screen down please Mexico, if you could just explain your support for the proposal of Brazil. Microphone, please.

Yes, Brazil's proposal for a 12.2 bis, it's already reflected, in fact, our support, our preliminary support for this. Then, moving on. under paragraph four. We think this might be too prescriptive for a binding instrument. Perhaps we could remove it in order to simplify 12. But I'd like to hear the opinion of the legal experts of the relevance of including this level of detail in this paragraph. I think those are the comments that we have for now. Thank you.

As I understand it, the proposal is to remove this paragraph with all of its subparagraphs and that you're submitting that for consideration. If you could perhaps just repeat that.

The deletion of 12.4.

Reflect that rather, the Secretariat.

Gracias.

I now give the floor to Indonesia.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have a proposal of modification for 12.3A ii. the paragraph on share information on concerning issues, challenges and so on. So after lesson learned in, we would like to propose preventing and addressing. So we believe the we underscore the importance of sharing of information not only in preventing but also addressing. So it would read in preventing and addressing human rights abuse in the context of business activities. Our proposal on business activities with understanding that they refer to business activities undertaken by transnational corporations and other business enterprises of transnational character, in line with one of the suggestions made by a number of States in article 4.1. In the third line, we would like to add after the effectiveness of, so we would like to add the work of, the effectiveness of the work of competent authorities, agencies and services. Yes, it is rightly reflected. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. China has the floor.

In terms of, we support the changes to Article 12.1, i.e. to the extent consistent with a domestic legal system. We also have one point, considering legal mutual assistance are mainly the actions between governments. suggest to delete the last half sentence of the previous, i.e. to delete the last part of 12.1, that is,

from including to the end. Thank you. It's better to stop at there in the civil proceedings.

The full stop is after the proceedings, not after the advice of the Uruguay.

Okay, let me make it clear again. Our advice is to delete, including assistance to expedite requests from private parties for the transmission and service of documents and for the taking of evidence in civil proceedings. Thank you.

Gracias.

Thank you. Colombia has the floor.

Thank you, Chair. For Colombia, Article 12 is essential for strengthening access to justice for victims of human rights violations related to business activities, especially in transnational contexts. This article sets out concrete obligations for states in terms of international legal cooperation, promoting mutual legal assistance mechanisms in criminal, civil, and administrative cases through the appropriate exchange of information, cooperation between state authorities, and training of staff, as well as application of bilateral and multilateral agreements. We are broadening the scope of the mechanisms available in order to provide sanction and reparation. for the damage the victims suffer. Altogether, they contribute to overcoming structural and jurisdictional barriers that persons affected face in guaranteeing a more effective response which is human rights focused. We also need to recover the provisions of Article 12.5 of the third revised draft, which had greater content and substance on legal assistance. In the current draft, it is addressed mainly from a technical and administrative point of view, but it is not specific, which may be insufficient in guaranteeing access to justice. Article 12.5 of the third draft explicitly recognised the need to set up effective legal assistance mechanisms which respond to the structural barriers that victims face, particularly in transnational contexts. Reincorporating this would strengthen the human rights focus of the instrument, ensuring that legal assistance is not limited to sending documents or exchanging information, but also includes concrete measures to facilitate access to reparation, legal representation, and effective participation of victims in legal processes and administrative processes. As such, we need to ask the expert group chair why 12.5 of the previous draft was removed. On the other hand, measures that this instrument claims to provide should be broadened to articles 4 and 5, not only 6 to 8, because these are also fundamental provisions for the rights of victims and their protections. We would also ask for the secretariat to put on the screen the proposals of the Republic of Colombia. Could you do so, please, for each of the proposals that we're presenting?

Okay. and when we

turn to 12.1 Colombia's proposal is that state party shall afford one another the greatest measures of mutual legal assistance in connection with legal civil and administrative proceedings to inform them of the measures and and here what's important after of the measures is to referring to articles 4-8, 4 to 8 So that's the complete proposal from Colombia for 12.1. In 12.2, we're proposing after mutual legal assistance to add that exist or may exist between them. So we're not just saying those that may exist, we're talking about those that do exist.

Perfect.

Perfect, thank you. 2.3. We'd like to stick to the original drafting in 12.3A. We would delete between relevant state agencies and after channels of communications we'd add judicial and non-judicial rather judicial and non-judicial mechanisms and authorities. Perfect, thank you. We want to do this in order to guarantee access to justice. because of the diversity of bodies and competencies in the legal and administrative order domestically, which could lead to confusions or legal voids. So we need to ask the experts what the scope of mechanisms and authorities are and what is covered by non-judicial. In 1, we'd like to stick to the original wording. In 12.3, where it speaks about human rights abuse, we would add "and violation". This is to be consistent with the proposal adopted by Colombia. We'd like to have "abuse and violation". in order to have greater gravity and diversity of how people are affected, how they are affecting human rights. In 12.3, the idea is to delete "relative state agencies" and then after between there we'd add "judicial and non-judicial mechanisms or authorities".

Apologies, Columbia. This is in the chapeau of 12.3, is it? Asks the Chair.

In 12.3, we would be removing relevant state agencies and adding judicial and non-judicial mechanisms authorities. In 12.4, In the chapeau, we would use the original wording, but in A, once again, we would delete "relevant state agencies" and in its place, put "judicial and non-judicial mechanisms and authorities". In 12.4b, in the chapeau and, we would stick to the original wording, and in, apologies. Similarly to previous proposals, we would remove "relevant state agencies" and add "judicial and non-judicial mechanisms and authorities", and In the third line down, where it says measures referred to in articles, we would prefer for it to be 4-8 rather than 6-8, so articles 4-8. Then following on, we would make an addition. After core process requirements, we would add, ensure the integrity of the chain of custody of proof. We believe that it's very relevant to include 4 and 5 because exchanged information is relevant for exercising victims' rights and protecting them, especially if we look to 4.2c, 4.2e, 5.3, 5.4 and 7. Additionally, it's important that in this article, or in Article 7, we talk about the custody of proof. That's all from Colombia. Thank you very much, Chair.

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

Thank you very much, Chair. Given the importance of Article 12, we would like, however, to say that, like other countries, any legal measure has to be based on national judicial systems, national priorities and national sovereignty. And in this regard, we have some proposals that we would like to make with regard to 12.1 and 12.3. Our proposals were already sent to the Secretariat via email.

In Article 12.1, States Parties should, in accordance with their domestic legal systems and existing international obligations, endeavor to afford, endeavor to afford legal system and existing international obligations, endeavor to afford one another E-N-D-E-A-V-O-R. To afford one another the greatest possible measure. What? Badadalek, after referring to in articles 6-8, deleting including, And adding such assistance may include, as appropriate, support. 12.3 States Parties shall cooperate closely with one another, as appropriate and subject to their national laws and priorities, As appropriate and subject to their national laws and priorities, with a view to enhancing. To establish, maintain and enhance where visible and where possible please add in concerning aspects. And I will follow up with the secretariat on the basis of what

was on the screen. For the following paragraph.

on a voluntary basis. And including after abuse, to be read as following, "In human rights abuse, with a view to strengthening..." Paragraph

B.

where appropriate and subject to bilateral agreements or arrangements. "Mahath" effective.

We'll delete "effective" here.

To promote the voluntary And then from "subject to bilateral

agreements" and up to the word "concerned", all of that whole sentence should be deleted, and then we'll add in "when mutually agreed". Thank you.

Thank you very much. The United Kingdom has the floor.

Our comments are in reaction to the amendments that have been made in the room, so we have not sent any of our recommendations to the Secretariat as of yet.

but we would like to make some comments from 12.1 onwards so we would like to register our support with Japan's proposal to add language quote unquote, to extent consistent with domestic legal systems.

And we would like to also support Saudi Arabia's interventions on including language on existing international obligations.

On

12.2 bis from Brazil's proposal, we would like to question the proposal

here for the language around one central authority, where states may have more than one authority to refer to.

We would like to register our support for replacing the language around relevant state

agencies with judicial and non-judicial mechanisms across sections 12.3A, 12.3B, 12.4A and 12.4B. We note that that is consistent with the report on replacing language that the chair distributed last week on article 7. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Palestine has the floor.

I'd like to voice our support to Colombia's proposal in replacing relevant state agencies with judicial and non-judicial mechanisms and authorities throughout the article. And also, we support their proposal in Article 12.3 A2, I think, yeah, and adding violations after abuse. And another point, we just would like to point out that our proposal to reinstate articles 12.10, 12.11, and 12.13 from the third revised draft has not been reflected on the documents.

in the screen thank you thank you

very much

are there any other states who would like to speak can I you have the floor

we support the proposal from Brazil when it comes to 122 bis The idea of a one central authority is very pertinent, because it will allow us to overcome the differences between judicial and non-judicial bodies. We would like to know the legal adviser's opinion on whether we can include that in 12.3 or in relevant provisions of 12.4 as well. So the proposal of Colombia would be to have that in the plural.

Before I give the floor to the next speaker, Palestine, could you please remind us of your proposal? You wanted to put a paragraph from a previous version in that. Could you please state that to us again so the Secretariat can take note? Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. It's articles 12.10 and 12.11 and 12.13 from the third revised draft.

thank you I think that Palestine's proposal is now reflected on the screen Palestine you have the floor

um it's only 12 10 11 and 13.

yes thank you sir B gracias

good thank you very much

United Kingdom thank you

so like to support the suggestion by Japan in 12.3 and the lung with language of encourages

the suggestion by Japan.

Thank you.

Gracias.

Thank you. Saudi Arabia, please.

Channon.

It would seem that our proposal has not been reflected in this version, which is just being edited.

A word should states, parties, short.

Thank you.

Thank you. next guy has the floor

thank you very much chairperson reporter we would just simply like to reflect in 123a within the modification Express that we prefer Columbia's proposal that we replace relevant state agencies with judicial and non-judicial mechanisms and authorities, or Brazil's proposal. Brazil's proposal is also interesting in our view. We supported Colombia's proposal for that paragraph, and we agree with them that we think it would be a good idea to hear from the experts on their view with these two different phrases to know which wording is the most suitable in this context and within this instrument. Thank you.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much. Are there any other states who'd like to take the floor? I don't think there are. I will now give the floor to representatives of civil society and other concerned actors, stakeholders concerned with Article 12. Firstly, Ganry.

I'm sorry to interrupt. Colombia wants to speak again, so please, Colombia.

Thank you very

much. In 12.2 bis, in the text, it says one central authority responsible, but our proposal was to say designated

central authorities, so authorities in the plural.

Thank you for that clarification. With that, I now give the floor back to you, Genri, you have the floor.

On behalf of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions, which comprises 118 NHRIs committed to promote and protect the human rights of all in the context of business activities.

On Article 12, GANRI supports replacing state agencies with judicial and non-judicial mechanisms, as this would be more in line with the UNGPs and in order to guarantee NHRIs involvement in helping states, where relevant, meeting their obligations under Article 12. Ganri calls on all States more broadly to include language

in the draft recognizing the role of NHRI to monitor the human rights impact of cross-border activities along supply chains.

In accordance with their respective

mandates, they also may handle complaints of a transnational nature and facilitate access to effective remedies for rights

holders in such cases.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, rapporteur.

Thank you very much. United States Council for International Business has the floor.

Chair, rapporteur, USCIB recognizes that international assistance and cooperation is important to promote human rights and access to remedy. Countries can strengthen judicial systems by learning from one another and exchanging experiences. However, Article 12 remains vague and poses a risk for state sovereignty. We welcome the proposal previously made by some governments to delete this article in full. It must be up to national legislation to decide what is allowed to be shared with other state parties. As it currently stands, Article 12 would create risks for unlawful targeting and theft of critical economic and trade secrets and intellectual property. Therefore, we call for the deletion of the article. I thank you.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much. Now, International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I speak on behalf of ESCR-Net. In relation to Article 12, we stress that States 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 and fulfill the right to information, ensuring

access to all relevant evidence needed for effective, prompt and impartial investigations and judicial

or other civil or administrative proceedings or criminal proceedings as well. We support the suggestions made by the State of Palestine and Colombia to improve

the text of the article and encourage states to support them as well, as they offer stronger guarantees for accountability.

We denounce efforts to weaken the text by making the sharing of information discretionary rather than mandatory. With regard to legal clarity, we note that article 12 draws on precedents from the UN Convention against Corruption as well as the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, both of which foster cooperation in addressing cross-border harm. Terms such as early identification and lessons learned reflect proactive and preventive enforcement rather than vagueness. These mechanisms are crucial for detecting risks early and sharing best practices among states. On sovereignty, Article 12.2 explicitly recognizes that mutual legal assistance should operate in conformity with any treaties or other arrangements between states, preserving state consents. Far from undermining sovereignty, such cooperation strengthens states' capacity to regulate corporate conduct and fulfill their human rights obligations. Finally, on confidentiality, Article 12 does not mandate wholesale disclosure. It applies only to information relevant to alleged violations and abuses under Articles 6 to 8, and remains subject to procedural safeguards.

In sum, Article 12 must reinforce

mutual legal assistance rather than dilute it, to ensure that accountability mechanisms are genuinely effective across borders.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Chair. The International Organization of Employers recognizes that international assistance and cooperation are important in promoting human rights and facilitating access to remedy. Countries should enhance efforts to support one another through technical cooperation, peer learning, and the exchange of good practices to strengthen judicial systems. However, as it stands, the current draft treaty merely replicates the Chair's proposal presented in the third draft treaty, without addressing concerns regarding its prescriptive nature and legal uncertainty. In this respect, we recall and support various governments' proposal to delete Article 12 in its entirety, as the provision lacks clarity, remains vague in purpose, and risks undermining state sovereignty. Furthermore, any future draft must take greater care to ensure the confidentiality and private nature of information exchange, balanced carefully against relevant policy interests. Without such safeguards, the provisions could expose companies to reputational harm or even to be unlawful targeting and theft of trade secrets and intellectual property. We welcome Uruguay's proposal going in this direction. Lastly, several terms such as early identification of breaches and lessons learned at Article 12.3, for example, remain ambiguous and open to subjective interpretation. Such lack of precision could lead to legal uncertainty and unintended consequences. IOE therefore calls for this article to be deleted or substantially redrafted to ensure legal clarity, respect for state sovereignty, and the protection of sensitive business information. I thank you.

Thank you.

I now give the floor to International Transport Workers Federation.

Thank you very much, Chair, and good afternoon. I speak on behalf of the global trade union movement. At the outset, I would like to highlight that we will be limiting our comments on the articles under consideration this week to labour and worker protection-related issues. However, we will also indicate support for textual proposals presented by States as appropriate. And we hope to reflect these positions in a formal written submission to the Secretariat shortly. Chair, in relation to Article 12, the trade unions believe that this article is crucial for the effective implementation of the LBI. We regret that the updated draft has lost the important provisions relating to judicial cooperation. Over the past 10 sessions, we have consistently raised the issue of workers facing obstacles in having judgments enforced in cross-border supply chain cases, among other things. That, we believe, is a fundamental aspect of access to remedy. Although we have no issues with provisions being streamlined for drafting purposes, it will be critical to reintroduce articles 12.10 and 12.11, which speak to the issue that speaks to this issue from the third revised draft, which was also supported earlier by the State of Palestine. We also reiterate the need for additional measures to ensure the implementation of this article, such as conciliation procedures where, for example, a State Party complains that another does not offer mutual legal assistance. Indeed, it would also be important to have a clear provision that allows States Parties to refuse mutual legal assistance in good faith only. And Chair, if you allow me some very quick reflections on some State proposals that we support. In principle, we're happy to support Brazil's proposed amendment to introduce a new 12.2 bis regarding the designation of a central authority, but not the subsequent corresponding amendment to 12.3. Indeed, here we can support Colombia's original proposed amendment referring to judicial and non-judicial mechanisms and authorities, but we also understand that we are awaiting response from the legal experts in this regard. We're happy to support Uruguay, Brazil, Colombia, and the United Kingdom's proposal at 12.4A, and also elsewhere to replace reference to state agencies with judicial and non-judicial agencies. We'd like to support Indonesia's amendment to 12.3A2. and to support Colombia on 12.4 in reference to the chain of custody. And we would also like to support all of the amendments proposed by the State of Palestine, including the reintroduction of article 12.5 from the third revised draft. And finally, Chair, in relation to article 12.1, which is really the central provision here, We feel that any qualifier limiting state obligations only to what is consistent with national legal systems is wholly inappropriate for this type of article.

I thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Now, I give the floor. to Sudwind Politic.

Thank you, Chair. I speak as part of the delegation of Sudwind and the Austrian Treaty Alliance. Dear delegates, dear colleagues, in regards to Article 12, paragraph 12.2, it is crucial to highlight that it speaks about mutual legal assistance only in abstract terms. However, many human rights violations involve corporate actors, such as multinational companies and their supply chains. We therefore suggest making it explicit that mutual legal assistance should also cover transnational corporate cases, so global south states like Bangladesh, Pakistan, and many more can access evidence and cooperation from companies based abroad. Otherwise, accountability remains uneven and corporations can hide behind jurisdictional borders. Furthermore, on paragraph 12.3, close cooperation assumes equal capacity, which isn't reality.

To make

cooperation meaningful, states with greater financial and institutional resources should support those with less, ensuring everyone can fulfill their obligations. Because unless that imbalance is addressed, mutual assistance will remain a promise that only some can afford to keep. Thank you.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you. Now I give the floor to Third World Network.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I speak on behalf of the Asian Task Force, a member of the Global Campaign, and also on behalf of the Institute of Policy Studies. Mutual legal assistance is an essential procedural bridge to access remedies. Narrowing institutional entry points or omitting the duty of effectiveness and promptness frustrates the right to an effective remedy and leaves victims trapped and hindered by obstacles and bureaucracy. States, therefore, should adopt the third revised draft wording and the Global Campaign's proposal on authorities to ensure that Article 12 becomes effective in conducting transnational investigations and accessing extraterritorial jurisdiction. The list is not exhaustive, but it identifies key procedural elements that warrant attention and in which State parties should commit to cooperate under this LBI. Unfortunately, article 12.1 was diluted in the updated draft. We thus ask that the previous language from the third draft be reinstated to avoid practical and real hindrances for victims and affected communities. We believe that the wording of the third draft is more concise and does not restrict mutual legal assistance. The version in the third draft facilitates assistance and protection to victims and communities. Moreover, references to domestic law must be removed, as they create an opening to contest compliance with the article. Once ratified, the treaties must consequently form part of domestic law that should be harmonized with this framework. Lastly, it is essential to restore the language from the former Article 12.10 and Article 12.11 that would restrict the ability to make excuses for refusing the enforcement of foreign court decisions. Enforcement of orders and decisions is one of the most crucial elements of access to remedy. Like the Chevron's case in Ecuador shows, obtaining favorable judgments, decisions, and orders does not guarantee remedy. since transnational corporations can simply leave the country without leaving assets behind. Thus, enforcing the judgments, decisions and orders rendered abroad, together with definitive language on joint and several liability, becomes an essential part of full reparation and punishment. We therefore respectfully ask that the inclusion of articles 12.10 and 12.11 from the third revised draft but eliminating letter e of 12.11 as the concept of art public is not well defined and may represent a pretext for states state parties to excuse themselves from complying with these provisions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I give the floor to the Commission for Jurists. and for human rights.

I deliver this statement on behalf of the International Commission of Jurists and the International Federation for Human Rights. With regard to Article 12, given its title and the fact that there is an Article 13 on international cooperation, we think that this article could be addressing more specifically the cooperation for judicial proceedings. rather than going into exchange of good practices and challenges, as in share information concerning issues, challenges and lessons learned in the prevention of business involvement in human rights abuse. While we don't think it is not relevant, this could be placed better under cooperation more broadly and possibly help to be more specific in Article 13, that is currently a bit vague and general. Another general comment on the article, we would like to highlight that the term "state agencies" may not be the most appropriate, especially here as the institutions mainly targeted are courts. Indeed, this is our understanding that we are talking about mutual legal assistance and about criminal, civil and administrative proceedings, and thus about courts. The judiciary is an independent branch, independent from the executive and the legislative branches of government, not a mere implementing technical agency. Hence, we think that the term "authorities" are more appropriate to recognize the nature of the institutions we are talking about in that article, but also in other parts of the draft LBI. In fact, this would be in line with language used in other relevant international law sources, including in the recent The Hague Convention on International Cooperation in the Investigation and Prosecution of the Crime of Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes, and other international crimes. We also suggest to use more language from this convention and to add the following phrase to article 12.1 and streamline the content of that article. For instance, the use of the phrase private parties, while we understand its intent, may not always be appropriate, such as when we speak of affecting the service of judicial documents. So we recommend the following phrase. 12.1, states parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of mutual legal assistance in investigations, prosecutions, and judicial proceedings in criminal, civil, and administrative cases relevant to the enforcement of the measures referred to in Articles 6 to 8, such as the assistance to expedite requests, including from private parties, for the provision of information, evidentiary items, and expert evaluations, for the servicing of judicial documents, and for the taking of evidence in civil proceedings or for executing searches, seizures, and confiscations. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And I'll give the floor to Global Justice.

I speak on behalf of Global Justice. At this point, it's essential to make a general comment reaffirming the need for this future international human rights instrument to reflect the principles and provisions contained in the main international treaties on the subject. The absence of this logic in both the guiding principles and due diligence legislations is one of the factors contributing to their inadequacy and has kept us in this negotiation process for more than 10 years. On the other hand, national initiatives such as the Brazilian Bill 572 and the Colombian Bill 153 show the appropriate assignments of human rights obligations to a state and business, affirming that a new paradigm is not only needed but possible. Regarding the new wording of Article 12, it represents a substantial setback compared to previous versions of the treaty, especially when one considers its central role in the architecture of international cooperation for the accountability of transnational corporations. The article, which should serve as a pillar for the enforcement of judicial decisions and exchange of information among states, has been progressively stripped of its normative and operational substance, resulting in a generic formulation dependent on state goodwill and disconnected from the concrete challenges of combating corporate impunity. The current text reiterates dependence on bilateral arrangements, perpetuates illogical voluntarism, and remains silent on the power asymmetries that prevent the states from cooperating on equal terms. Far from constituting progress, the proposed version consolidates the treaty's structural fragility, diminishes its capacity to confront corporate impunity, and distances it from its core purpose to render effective the international liability of business for human rights violations. The new text abandons the structure and procedure character that marked earlier versions, replacing provisions that almost detail specific measures, such as assistance in the production of evidence, asset freezing, joint investigations, and a mechanism of direct cooperation among national authorities, with broad and essential declaratory clauses. The choice of vague language, central and committed to strengthen communication channels and exchange good practices, should be avoided. We also support the contribution of Uruguay according to Article 12.5 and those made by Palestine in addition to Colombia's considerations. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. I give the floor to Brazilian AIDS Association.

Is that me? I'm a parliamentarian from the Philippines and speak on behalf of Friends of the Earth International and ABIA members of the global campaign. For decades the dominant promise has been this: free trade agreements and deregulation will bring prosperity. But in the Philippines we have paid for this freedom with our deepest resources, our food, our land and our very lives. The truth will leave this is that these agreements are not free at all. They are instruments of starvation, deindustrialization, and the quiet surrender of our national sovereignty. They open our borders, not to partnership, but to predation, creating a legal landscape where transnational corporations are given every incentive to profit and no mechanism to held truly accountable. A foreign mining company epitomizes this violence. Operating in their ancestral domain of the indigenous people in the Philippines, their legacy is a litany of allegations, violent dispersal, food blockades, harassment, and the desecration of sacred sites like the summit of Mount Kanatuwan. Also, a massive land conversation was pushed through without free, prior, and informed consent in the Indigenous people community, replacing sustainable traditional livelihoods with an industrial zone. For them, this isn't progress. It is the continuation of historical dispossession, all for the benefit of a corporatized vision of development. This foreign corporation, shielded by a flawed domestic legal framework, exploited poor communities and resources at the expense of our people and our Indigenous spiritual patrimony. When the price of defending our ancestral land is your life, the system is fundamentally broken. Allowing access to courts without ensuring cooperation between states for evidence gathering and without enforcement mechanisms to facilitate implementation of judicial decisions in countries is insufficient. We aim to move beyond the mere symbolism of potentially favorable decisions and secure tangible reparation and remedies for the affected communities. article 12 is critically to ensuring access to remedy just like with article 6 8 and 9. this article has been substantially weakened by the incorporation of the 2022 chairs in formal proposals into the updated draft in 2023. important provisions on International judicial cooperation were lost but this specific form of cooperation is potential to facilitate the procedural handling of claims so as to ensure that victims of affected communities are not trapped by bureaucracy or borders when seeking remedy. We therefore urge states, as Palestine and Colombia did, to support restoring key language from the third revised draft to make sure Article 12 becomes fit to its purpose. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much.

And I'll give the floor to Setim.

My name is Grace Tepula. I'm a small-scale farmer in Ndola, Zambia. I'm a member of the Rural Women Assembly, the largest movement of peasant women in Southern Africa, and speak on behalf of SETIM, an association for the promotion and protection of human rights, SHUPAM, members of the global campaign. Chair, I'm coming from an area where there was a disaster of acid and toxic minerals which were spilled. by a mining company in one of the major rivers, leading to loss of lives in about 25 people and also livestock, and leaving others with respiratory diseases and no clean water, land and environmental degradation. Article 12 is a crucial complement to extraterritorial jurisdiction, a core element And we recommend changing relevant state agents in Article 12 to competent judicial and non-judicial authorities. The phrase relevant state agencies is too vague and can be used by transnational corporations to sidestep courts, making it harder for affected people and communities to get justice. Sorry. Sorry, Chair. No judicial bodies can be useful, but they must never replace access to courts. People should have the broadest possible range of ways to obtain full and effective remedy, including different forms of reparation and decisions delivered without undue delay. Standards affirmed by the European, African, and Inter-American Human Rights Courts. To secure this in practice, the treaty should return to the wording of the third revised draft, which has already been proposed in other articles and clearly requires States to ensure that both the courts and their non-judicial bodies actually make access to justice real and effective. Chair, we have the right as communities to say no pollution and the transnational corporation impunity. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. That was the last speaker. Does any state wish to take the floor once again? That seems... Brazil, please. And then Palestine.

Thank you, Chair. Regarding the request that we were requested to clarify on our proposals, just to say that it's not an uncommon practice. And I can give the example of the Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, with a broad list of ratification under 94 parties. And there was a provision on, for instance, the designation of a central authority. for specifically in Article 18 regarding legal, regarding mutual assistance. So that's the clarification I'd like to provide a basis for our proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Palestine, please.

Thank you, Chair. Just to put it on record, it's a general observation regarding some of the proposals made under Article 12. We reject any language that would dilute state parties' obligations to cooperate, as such language would undermine the very purpose of the treaty. Therefore, we do not support references to domestic national law, proposals that merely encourage rather than obligate state parties, or any formulation that would shift the treaty from being obligatory to voluntary in nature. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much. I have Colombia, Mexico and some other requests for the floor. Or rather some other questions that we received rather than requests for the floor. With regards to state agencies, central authorities or judicial and non-judicial mechanisms or other authorities, We've consulted the legal expert on that. They're going to reflect on that. And tomorrow they will give us their thoughts on the scope of choosing one option or another. With that, we've reached the end of our deliberations on Article 12, thank you for your constructive participation. We shall now turn to Article 13 on international cooperation. It sets out that States should cooperate in good faith in order to facilitate compliance with their obligation and fulfilment of the purposes of the future legally binding instrument. It also recognises the importance of international cooperation. including financial and technical assistance and capacity building as key aspects of effective implementation of the mechanism for all countries. In order to do so, States commit to adopting effective measures, including an alliance with international organizations and regional organizations that are competent and as appropriate with civil society and other relevant stakeholders. Such measures include, but are not limited to, promoting effective technical cooperation and capacity building among policymakers, parliaments, judiciary, national human rights institutions, the private sector as well as those who use reparation mechanisms on a national and international level, sharing experiences and good practices and training programmes, facilitating cooperation in research, diffusing information regarding human rights abuses in the context of business activities, including those of transnational character. Finally, it recognizes the importance of contributions within available resources to the International Fund for Victims referred to in Article 15.7 of the legally binding instrument. As a whole, the aim of the article is to have a sustained structural approach which reinforces prevention, reparation and accountability in the face of business abuses, ensuring that no state is alone in implementing the instrument. With this brief introduction, I will now open the floor to states who wish to make statements with comments and proposals for drafting With regards to the current updated version of the draft instrument. I give the floor to Uruguay to start us off.

We consider that the current drafting of Article 13 is appropriate as it comprehensively sets out the obligations of States Parties to cooperate in good faith in order to fulfil their obligations under this instrument. We are pleased to see specific mention of financial and technical assistance and capacity building because these are key tools in order to guarantee the effective implementation of the instrument. especially in those states with fewer resources. We believe it is positive that cooperation includes international and regional organisations and civil society with an inclusive, participatory approach, equally strengthening capacity and being available to all users with a complaints mechanism, as well as awareness raising on victims' rights and the obligations of states. This contributes to more effective implementation and better protection of human rights. We believe that the reference to cooperation and research is important, and studies on human rights abuses as well. This strengthens the core of evidence on this topic. Equally, the International Fund for Victims and legal assistance to help those who have been affected. With regards to 13.2, Uruguay supports the language of violations alongside abuses and peoples and communities as well as victims. We would also suggest bringing back article 13.3 because it supports the commitment of States to provide assistance via multilateral and bilateral mechanisms. In this respect, we recommend adding that these would be sensitive to the needs of developing States and aim to strengthen domestic capacities for access to justice. We understand that this would guarantee a differentiated approach based on the reality of each country. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Just a clarification, Uruguay. You suggested including 13.3 of the previous version on the one hand, and on the other hand, you suggested including victims and abusers. Well, in summary, you had additional text. If you could perhaps read that at a slower pace so that the secretariat can reflect it on the screen.

What we suggested was to include violations every time that we mention abuses and that we refer to affected peoples and communities as well as victims. Then When we suggest bringing back 13.3, we would add "sensitive to needs of developing states and aimed at strengthening domestic capacities for access to justice."

Apologies, the Secretariat can't keep up with that pace. If you could perhaps say it more slowly again. the exact terms and where they would be placed.

So 13.3, which isn't on the screen, the idea was that we would bring back 13.3, I don't know if I've got the drafting here, and then at the end we would add.

To needs of developing states an aim.

Sensitive to needs of developing states and aim at strengthening domestic capacities for access to justice. And the others were that in 13.2, we speak about the rights of victims, and we would add "and affected peoples", the rights of victims and affected peoples and communities. and where it says abuses we would add and violations and further up as well where it says raising awareness of the rights of victims of these abuses, abuses and violations. No, no further up at the beginning of C it says raising awareness about the rights of victims of business-related human rights abuses and violations.

Gracias.

Thank you. Thank you, yes. We've also reflected that specific proposal. So 13.3 would be the previous text and then the addition that you proposed afterwards. It's now being reflected as 13.2 bis. So, that brings us to the end of Uruguay's proposal. I now give the floor to Mexico.

Thank you very much, Chair. With regards to 13, in broad brushstrokes, we agree with the drafting proposed. We believe it is important to have an article on international cooperation, referring specifically to financial cooperation, technical assistance and capacity building. We do have two brief drafting suggestions in order to improve the wording. We are in 13. We would suggest making a small tweak so that it says raising awareness about the rights of victims in the context of business-related human rights abuses. So it's the addition of "in the context of". Thank you. That should bring greater clarity. And then 13.2. It's a very minor change. We would have business activities including those of a transnational character rather than transnational characters in plural. So it's be right at the end, including those of a transnational character rather than transnational characters. It's a really minor change. Those are our proposals for now. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much. Colombia has the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. Firstly, Colombia considers that financing international cooperation is of great importance and should be explicitly recognized by states in the framework of the United Nations, especially in the current context of a backslide in the resources available for this purpose, international cooperation is absolutely key for guaranteeing proper functioning of global governance mechanisms and ensuring robust and effective protection of human rights. This is all the more relevant considering that not all states have the same technical and financial capacities, and that many are facing situations of structural inequality, armed conflict, humanitarian crises, and other conditions that limit their ability to act. Colombia is making a call for us to recognize and strengthen financing of international cooperation as a necessary precondition to move forward towards equitable implementation of a legally binding instrument and guarantee that no state is left behind in human rights protections in the face of the impact of business activities, specifically on drafting on Article 13. In 13.1, as we've said previously, rather we previously sent the text to the Secretariat in order to facilitate the process. So in the first part.

Including the prevention of corruption, to enable the implementation of their obligations recognized under the legally binding instrument.

On this point, we believe that we need to add, including the prevention of corruption, specifically financial cooperation. This will enable us to guarantee transparency in the use of resources coming from private or international stakeholders, thus strengthening the integrity of processes and trust in cooperation mechanisms. In 13.2, in the first part, we would include the following: States parties recognize the importance of international cooperation.

Including financial and technical assistance and capacity building, strengthening non-reimbursable international cooperation for the realization of the purpose of the present legally binding instrument, and all the rest.

And then the paragraph would be as it is until the second to last line. where, after civil society, we would add 'and the private sector'. And that's it. With that, the Colombian State would like to emphasise international cooperation, which is not reimbursable, which is a modality that's broadly used by various states. We would also suggest incorporating the role of the private sector expressly in this type of cooperation, because they're a key stakeholder in the framework of responsibilities for prevention, mitigation and protection of human rights. In a and b, we'd keep to the original wording, but in 13.2c, we would like to make some changes. We would like it to be drafted as follows.

Developing action aimed at raising awareness about the rights of victims.

And here we could join the proposal from Mexico, no, Uruguay, on affected peoples and communities of business-related human rights abuses and violations and the obligations of states under this legally binding instrument. Further, we would also add a second part which would be...

Promote human rights, respect international business activities and state obligation, as well as the means available for access to mechanisms for remedy, justice, and effective participation in the processes of the implementation of this instrument.

On this point, sorry, I'm going very quickly, okay. Apologies, it's just that we'd sent the text in advance. What we're trying to do with this point is to show that it's essential that international cooperation should be reflected in policies, programmes, agreements, plans and initiatives which are developed by the state as well as by the stakeholders, with the key aim of strengthening capacities aimed at development. In being consistent with the cross-cutting position adopted by Colombia, we are recommending to include violations as well as abuses in order to give greater precision as to the gravity and diversity of how human rights are affected. Equally, it's fundamental that the actions arising out of cooperation should not be limited simply to awareness raising, rather we should be promoting effective respect of human rights as well as access to mechanisms for operation justice and significant participation of victims and other relevant stakeholders in 13 to D we support the proposal of Uruguay to add to add violations so it would read "abuses and violations". And obviously this is consistent with the cross-cutting position adopted by Colombia. And we're suggesting this inclusion in order to better reflect the gravity and diversity of how human rights are affected. With regard to 13.2, we suggest deleting this. and moving it to 15.7 because it refers to the International Fund for Victims and this change would contribute to greater structural consistency and thematic consistency of the instrument. Also, there is no clarity on the sources of financing for this fund. And so it's suggested that it should be available to all of those, to support all of those who mention it in order to guarantee consistency for equality of treatment, the Commonwealth State would like to ask the chair, rapporteur, to ask the experts the intention of including this provision in this section on international cooperation, would the MT better understand where it's placed and the scope within the draft, thank you.

Okay. Yeah, you should.

Furthermore, we would like to include a new paragraph and it would be It would be worded as follows.

Broadening diversified funding sources to enable the implementation of the cooperation activities to which the present article refers. We're.

Suggesting to include this because we believe that we need to broaden and diversify sources of financing in order to guarantee effective implementation of international cooperation activities set out in this article. This measure would clearly contribute to strengthening sustainability and scope of cooperation actions involving both public and private resources. Moreover, we have a new proposal of another new paragraph and this is aligned with Uruguay's proposal because it's a similar concern. And so we would propose that we include another paragraph which would be drafted as follows.

In a position to do so shall provide financial, technical or other assistance to developing and least developed countries through a system, multilateral, regional, bilateral or other programs for the purpose of realizing the aims of this LBI.

Including this proposal in Article 13 would be a key leap forwards, but recognizing structural inequality between states and promoting an approach of solidarity and international cooperation. This provision, we believe, could strengthen implementation of the treaty in countries with lower institutional, technical or financial capacity. Thank you very much, Chair. Apologies, Chair. Lastly, we would like to support Mexico with their proposal of including 13.2d. Thank you.

Thank you, Colombia.

Japan has the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Um, with regard to 13.1 concerning international cooperation, Japan notes that the use of the term shall is inappropriate. International cooperation should be determined in accordance with the needs and the policy priorities of the respective national authorities. Therefore, our proposal is to delete "shall" in the first line and instead add "are encouraged to". And regarding Article 13, Japan notes that the obligations are addressed to states and the business enterprises are not explicitly identified as duty bearers. However, as business enterprises and operators are listed among the entities involved in cooperation and capacity building, there could be room for interpretation that they are required to take certain actions. To clarify that business enterprises are cooperation partners, not direct duty bearers under this LBI, Japan proposes to revise the wording after national human rights institutions, I think in the second line, to read users of domestic, regional, and international grievance mechanisms, with the involvement of business enterprises and operators. And to delete the final phrase, as well as users of domestic, regional, and international grievance mechanisms. Users of domestic, yes. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Indonesia has the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Under this article, we have three suggestions. The first one in 12, 13.2A. With regard to the wordings of business enterprises and operators, we feel that since the business enterprises in the current draft as it stands are not defined yet, and with the aim of being consistent with the scope of this draft legally binding instrument. So our suggestion is business enterprises and operators are changed to transnational corporations and other business enterprises. So, yeah. And for point C, also for the sake of consistency, including our suggestion in article 4.1, so instead of business-related human rights abuses, so we would like to propose human rights abuses in the context of business activities, of course, with the understanding that Those are undertaken by TNCs and other business enterprises of transnational character. And the last one, 4.D, we would like to add an addressing after preventing and deletion of the later part. including those of transnational characters. Because we see as if the addition of including the business activities are brought in the scope. So we suggest this again with understanding that business activities are already undertaken by transnational corporations and other business enterprises of transnational character. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much.

Brazil now has the floor.

For Brazil, international cooperation is a key aspect for the advancement of the business and human rights agenda. We would like to, in that regard, we would like to make a proposal for article 13.2A in line with our proposals for the previous article. And I would add in our proposal now for this one would add designated central authorities in 13.2A, right after capacity building among. So it would read, promoting effective technical cooperation and capacity building among designated central authorities, comma, and then the article continues with policymakers, parliaments, judiciary. And also, we'd like to add our support to Uruguay's proposal in paragraph 13 to C, in the case of effective peoples and communities, and also adding violations after human rights abuses. And that's it for Brazil for article 13. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.

I now give the floor to Egypt.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We wish to extend our support to the suggestion made by Indonesia in 13.2a. And in 13.2c, we suggest an alternative drafting. I would to read, "Raising awareness about raising awareness about the abuses and violations of the human rights of victims affected by the activities of TNCs and OBEs, transnational corporations and other business enterprises, activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises, comma, and the obligations of states under this legally binding instrument. Accurate. And another alternative drafting for 13.2 to read, facilitating cooperation and research and studies on the challenges, good practices and experiences in preventing human rights abuses in the context of the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises of transnational character. So the purpose for these two suggestions is to just make it as close as to the mandate of the working group as possible from our understanding. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Palestine has the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Article 13 is essential to ensure that this instrument can be implemented effectively and equitably by all State parties. The State of Palestine recalls that the duty to cooperate for the promotion and protection of human rights is a fundamental obligation under Article 55 and 56 of the UN Charter, and this duty must be reflected in a clear and binding manner in the text of this treaty. In the spirit of maintaining coherence with the prior discussions and harmonizing terminology across the instrument, we support Uruguay's proposal in Article 13, which adds affected peoples and communities and violations. This is 13.2. Additionally, we also propose recovering paragraph 13.3 from the updated revised draft and we're still looking into the proposals by Uruguay and Colombia on the same article. Yes. Okay. and we also support the proposal by Colombia by adding violations in article 13 2d and finally as we have stated and expressed before in article 12 we do not support the language proposed to change shall to encourage in article 13 1 for the same reasons thank you.

Gracias.

Thank you. The European Union has the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The EU regularly commits to international cooperation in international agreements, for instance, within the framework of partnership agreements. This said, it is important to preserve a margin of discretion for state parties. allowing them to choose the specific forms of international cooperation that are most appropriate for the issues identified. As regards Article 13.2, we would like to ask a clarification whether the wording between and among states is meant to refer to both bilateral cooperation and multilateral cooperation. Additionally, for article 13.2a, we wonder what would be the role of the listed entities, while others, such as civil society organizations, are not mentioned. With respect to the proposed establishment of an international fund for victims to provide legal and financial aid for victims when they seek access to remedies, and to which State parties are expected to contribute, within their available resources, we would like to seek clarification on whether any such contributions would be on a voluntary basis. We also would like to clarify how the fund would interact with other provisions in the draft LBI, which refer to the obligation of state parties to provide financial assistance and/or legal aid to victims. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Uruguay has the floor.

I'm sorry, Chairperson, I forgot to put my nameplate down. I wasn't asking for the floor again. Thank you.

Mexico. Mexico has the floor.

Thank you very much, Chairperson, rapporteur. We would just like to respond to some of the suggestions made in the room when it comes to 13.1. Alongside Palestine, we are not able to support the modification that's been put forward that we replace "shall" with "are encouraged to", as Japan suggested. If we recall the General Assembly resolution on the Declaration of Principles on International Law on Cooperation between States in line with the UN Charter, there is an obligation, a duty of states to cooperate with each other, and I read.

"Of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.

Is one of the main purposes of that instrument. So we think that this is an international duty to cooperate between states so that they ensure that human rights obligations are respected. However, we are not able to support a dilution of that paragraph, namely 13.1. And I would like to make another comment with regard to some proposals made in the room. We add in, in 13.2, references to affected communities, in addition to speaking about victims. Even though we believe it's important that we mention communities and that we include them, is not just victims who are affected by this instrument and we think it's important that we have a consistency throughout the text. So I think what we might need to reflect on is if we shouldn't adjust the definition of victims provided in the first few articles so that we can ensure that communities are included in the definition of victims. The current definition one of the proposals made does cover a group of persons because it speaks of a person or group of persons who have been affected by human rights infringement when it comes to business activities. So perhaps communities are already included in those definitions and then in that case we would just raise this issue so that the whole document is consistent. Thank you, that's what I wanted to say. Thank you very much, United Kingdom.

Thank you, Chair. We would like to register our support for Japan's suggestion in 13.1 to change "shall" to "are encouraged to". And we would like to make a similar point as well with 13.2 with the replacement of the use.

Of "will" to have that as "are encouraged to".

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other states who would like to take the floor at this time? Colombia, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. We would simply like to align ourselves with Palestine's position, as well as that of Mexico, when it comes to 13.1. We don't agree that we should replace "shall" by "are encouraged to". Moreover, I'd like to return to what Mexico said with regard to the fact that the definition of victims should cover communities as well. As we have systematically said, this concept needs to be defined so that it can involve a group of persons.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Being Palestina.

Palestine has the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I will be quick. Just on UK's proposal on 13.2, to replace will with or encourage to, we have the same position as the previous proposal by Japan. We oppose it.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. We have reached the end of our time. We will continue tomorrow on this article. But before I adjourn the meeting, I would like to give the floor to the Secretariat. Please go ahead.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, Rapporteur.

As we will continue tomorrow on the state-led negotiation, I would like to make a plea and ask all state delegation making concrete textual suggestions, and as I had indicated earlier this morning, to share this well in advance to facilitate the real-time capturing on screen of those textual suggestions made, which you will all appreciate is a very, an incredibly stressful and challenging task for the colleague in charge. So I would be very grateful if you could send those concrete textual suggestions to the e-mail address, oechr-igwg@w3.org. intervention at un.org and copy as well the interpreters speeches at un.org this is this indication is as well in the participation note on the web page of the 11th session thank you very much for your cooperation gracias.

Thank you for that request and with that I hereby declare that this session is adjourned and we will see each other tomorrow at 10 a.m. Thank you very much for participating.