6th meeting, 12th Session of Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations

Good afternoon, everybody. Distinguished delegates, distinguished participants, I declare open the sixth meeting of the 12th session of the Intergovernmental Working Group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises in relation to human rights.

At the end of.

This morning's meeting, we began a discussion on proposal 16 and article 1.8. due diligence and human rights. I give the floor to the United Kingdom.

Before commenting on article 1.8, the UK would like to put on record that we reserve our position on articles 1.4 to 1.7 as we continue to consider them. We would like to briefly respond to proposals made this morning on those paragraphs. The UK cannot agree to proposals that would limit the relevant definitions only to business activities of a transnational character or that would exclude state-owned enterprises. This would clearly create a protection gap. On article 1.8, we are generally content as the chair has drafted and appreciate the streamlining of this paragraph. Thank you.

My thanks to the United Kingdom. Uruguay, please.

Thank you, Chair-Rapporteur, and good afternoon, colleagues. On this proposal, we understand that due diligence in human rights is a core component of the preventive aspect of a future instrument. We therefore support maintaining in article 1 the key parts of the definition of due diligence in human rights. At the same time, we see merit in the operational aspects being developed in article 6. As long as this reorganization does not reduce its scope, in particular, we understand that it's important to preserve the aspects that we currently see in 1.8. pertaining to identification and assessment of the negative impact on human rights, its prevention and mitigation, as well as giving follow-up to measures adopted and ensuring periodic inspection as to how that impact is addressed, in particular for affected persons or those who could potentially be affected. Given that the new drafting of article 16 will be presented subsequently. We understand that a definitive reorganisation of this wording will be done alongside this text in order to ensure that the substantive content that we currently see is preserved. I thank you.

Thank you to Uruguay. Ghana, please.

We have nothing to say at the moment. Thank you.

Gracias.

Thank you. So, is there any other state wishing to take the floor? The State of Palestine, please.

Thank you, Chair.

We welcome the new definitions of the right to remedy and reparation. and ask that they refer to full reparation and to abuses and violations. We also welcome that...

Apologies for interrupting. I'm still looking at the list of speakers for proposal 16 of article 1.8 on human rights due diligence. Would any state like to take the floor on this? If that is not the case, we will proceed with statements from civil society and other stakeholders.

I give the floor to Global.

Forum for the Defense of the Less Privileged.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. We consider human rights due diligence essential because preventing human rights abuses is preferable to responding only after harm has occurred. Businesses should be required to assess the potential consequences of their activities and business relationships, and notably to take appropriate action to prevent or mitigate adverse impacts. On that note, we recommend ensuring that Article 6 fully incorporates these responsibilities if they are removed from Article 1.8. The restructuring of the text should improve its organization without reducing the protection afforded to affected individuals and communities.

I thank you.

Thank you very much. I recognize the International Organization of Employers.

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of IOE and USCIB. We welcome the reference to the UNGPs, namely principles 15 and 17 to 21 as the basis for this definition. Human rights due diligence should remain fully anchored in this operational framework that enjoys universal consensus. We remain open on whether the operative elements are best placed in Article 1 or in Article 6. However, the redrafting of the first sentence raises concerns. By deleting "by which business enterprises" and the term "address," the definition no longer says whose processes and whose impacts are concerned. It also shifts from accounting for how impacts are addressed, the process-based approach of UNGP 15, to accounting for the impacts as such. We will welcome clarification from the Chair and the legal experts on the rationale for these changes. Moreover, the remaining elements will be integrated into Article 6 with some modifications to align with legislative developments at national level. National and regional laws vary widely. The reference point should remain the guiding principles, not any particular legislation. Lastly, whatever the placement, the proportionality language of the current text must be preserved, namely that these processes will vary in complexity with the size of a business enterprise, the risk of severe adverse human rights impacts, and the nature and context of the operations. It is central to UNGP17 and essential for MSMEs. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I recognize Sid, sir.

Chair, rapporteur, I am taking the floor on behalf of SIDS, CCFD-Terre Solidaire, Manos Unidas, Misere Orbe, Trocaire, Fasten, Caritas and CAFOD. We hail the efforts of the chair, rapporteur, to strengthen article 18 and clarify the connection between due diligence and substantive obligations under article 6. Nevertheless, we are concerned that the proposal maintains the concept of due diligence in human rights without explicitly recognising the impact on the environment and human rights are often intrinsically linked and must therefore be tackled as part of a coherent approach of diligence. In the current version, article 1.8 refers to the process of vigilance and provides for an obligation to mitigate restrictions on human rights. However, formulating it in that way is likely to lead to an understanding that a certain level of restriction of human rights is acceptable. That would undermine the fundamental goal of the treaty, which is to prevent any abuse of human rights. It is crucial to clarify the content of this definition in order to ensure coherent interpretation of the provisions of the instrument. All of these elements will contribute to bolstering the ultimate purpose of due diligence and ensure that any risks of impact on the environment are considered in the implementation of this instrument. Finally, this point is crucial, as we have underscored during the discussions of articles 6 and 8 during the 11th session, and due diligence on human rights should not automatically release a company from its legal responsibility in the case of damage, nor create an obstacle for victims to access justice. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I recognize Georgetown University.

Distinguished delegates, I'm Elena Stefanus-Tacca of Georgetown University. This is a statement made on behalf of Change the Law Limited. Change the Law agrees with the Chair's proposals that there are far too many processes to list here in the definitions and agree with the Chair's suggestions that the remaining elements be entered in Article 6. However, we believe that this definition of human rights due diligence, HRDD, needs adjusting to include human rights and environmental due diligence, HREDD, and heightened human rights and environmental due diligence, HHRDD. Stakeholder engagement should be included in HREDD, and this should include free, prior, informed consent, FPIC. Definitions should include three new definitions for clarity. The first new definition that should be included is the age of the child. This would provide the definition for the minimum age for admission to any type of employment. The definition to apply as a minimum should be the International Labour Organization, ILO's Minimum Age Convention 1973, number 138. The second new definition would be governance of AI and emerging technologies. the exponential rate at which AI is developing means its use in the information and content gathering, including the retention of information for HR EDD, is a new potential risk that could expose people, including vulnerable and marginalized groups of people, to surveillance, victimization, discrimination, misinformation, manipulation, misuse of information, and other human rights abuses. The third new definition suggested should be: corporate governance, directors duties and the responsibilities of senior executives in large companies. This should be included into the definitions of the LBI and that could also be included in Article 16 for states to pass through their domestic legislations, for example, in corporate law. Directors' duties were in CSDDD. Change the Law Limited made a submission previously with the International Bar Association Human Rights Law Committee on directors' duties for the EU CSDDD. Change the Law believes including corporate governance, directors' duties, and the responsibilities of senior executives in large companies in the LBI is the way to move forward. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.

I give the floor to International Trade Union Confederation.

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the Global Labour Movement. I will be brief. We support the suggested changes to the first sentence of Article 1.8 with the proposed adjustment and moving the rest of the text to the operative sections on human rights due diligence at Article 6. Thank you.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much. I recognize Terra dei Direitos.

Chair, I'm speaking on behalf of Terra dei Direitos, is a Brazilian human rights organization that's part of the global campaign. The definition of human rights due diligence as presented is weak because it does not mention value chains or due diligence as an obligation for transnational corporations. It uses a problematic term, adverse impacts. Furthermore, in line with the proposal from the Chair to simplify the definition and move due diligence to Article 6, we would support deleting this definition because it's not necessary for it to be defined in Article 1. and it needs to be presented as one of the prevention obligations that must specifically be addressed to corporations. We recall that a low due diligence can be a tool, as long as it is defined as an obligation for transnational corporations. The treaty must address other mechanisms for prevention, responsibility and jurisdiction that due diligence mechanisms do not cover. To illustrate the insufficiency of non-binding mechanisms and of prevention that is limited to due diligence, we refer to the Bayer case. On 25 April 2024, six Latin American and European organisations presented a complaint against Bayer before the national contact point of the OECD in Germany, where the headquarters of the company are based. There are documented impacts associated with the expansion of transgenic soya and the use of glyphosate in four countries. In Argentina, there is pollution and serious health problems for families in the province of Pergamino. In Bolivia, there is deforestation and expropriation of indigenous territories. peasant lands in Paraguay, intoxication, loss of means of subsistence and the eviction of peasant families. And in Brazil, we've seen violation of territorial rights, health, water and food for the Ava Guarani people. These three indigenous communities living close to large soya transgenic soya plantation that use pesticides. Analysis in the laboratory identified glyphosate and AMPA metabolite in sources of water used for the communities. We have heard about intoxication and recurring symptoms, loss of animals and damage to crops and traditional food production. The complaint pointed out these violations of the guidelines of the OECD when it comes to responsible business conduct, and Bayer did not identify, prevent or adequately address the negative impact of their activities and products throughout the value chain. In spite of the seriousness of these complaints, the German prosecutor took over two years to close the case. It did not examine concrete cases and introduced requirements that were excessive for this stage and proposed a limited mediation for general policies of the company. The organisations rejected this proposal because discussing abstract policies without addressing the lived harm by the communities does not guarantee recognition. Chair, this case shows the limitation of voluntary, non-binding mechanisms. Communities face enormous difficulties to access business information and produce costly technical evidence and establish causal links. We therefore advocate for a legally binding international instrument that establishes clear obligations for prevention and solidarity and responsibility for transnational companies throughout the global value chain. As well as effective access to justice, human rights cannot depend on the capacity of victims to overcome the barriers that are imposed by great corporations. I thank you.

Thank you very much. This was the last speaker on my list. I thank you all for your contributions, and I've taken due note of them. It's now time to refer to the proposal 17. from article 19. The goal of this proposal is to align the text with international human rights standards and introduce a few conceptual clarifications. The proposal distinguishes between the idea of remedy, which is a broad concept that addresses access to justice and to remedy, and reparation, which refers to specific kinds of compensation for harm. The definition in force does not refer to remedy as understood in the basic principles. The first part relates to reparation or restitution, which is only part of comprehensive recovery. It also adds restitution and other forms of reparation as a number of ways of describing effective remedy. In the intercessional thematic consultations, we noted that there was a need to distinguish between remedy, reparation and restitution. maintaining the notion of effective remedy or effective use of guiding principles. There was a proposal to distinguish between state obligation to guarantee access to effective remedy and the responsibility upon corporations to provide reparation. There was a suggestion to have a general reference to full reparation, and several delegations and organisations supported the need to clarify that reparation must be accessible to all and meet the particular needs of victims, with different positions on exactly how to express gender, age or disability. In addition, paragraphs 12 and 15 of the Basic Guiding Principles were considered, and article 30 of the Articles on State Responsibility for Illicit International Acts relating to cessation and non-repetition. On this basis, the chair-rapporteur suggests that we consider redrafting article 19 into two paragraphs. First, article 19 would define the right to remedy as the victim's right to have equal and effective access to justice, adequate, efficient and swift reparation for the harm incurred, and access to relevant information on abuse and reparation mechanisms, following the structure of basic principles and guidelines. Secondly, there would be a new article 19B that would define reparation as a series of either individual or combined measures, such as restitution, indemnisation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and penalty, that should be appropriate and integrate gender and be age responsive, as well as incorporating disability dimensions. Furthermore, if circumstances so require, it should include the cessation of the human rights abuse and appropriate assurances and guarantees of non-repetition. I would now open the floor to States wishing to make comments on proposal 17 and the rewording of article 19.

The State of Palestine, please.

Thank you, Chair.

We welcome the new definitions of the right to remedy and reparation and ask They refer to full reparation and to abuses and violations. We also welcome that reparation now expressly integrates gender and age responsive and disability inclusive dimensions. We are concerned, however, about the last sentence of 1.9 bis. Moving succession of the abuse out of the list of measures and into a sentence that begins, quote, "if circumstances so required," end of quote, Secession is the first step towards a remedy and cannot be conditional. We therefore ask that, quote, "the secession of the human rights abuse," end of quote, be removed from that sentence, and that secession of the abuse or violation be listed among the measures of reparation alongside restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and sanctions. Only the guarantees of non-repetition should remain subject to the condition. Thank you.

Muchas gracias, Alastad.

My thanks to the State of Palestine.

La Union Europea.

The European Union, please.

Thank you. Concerning the definition of remedy in article 1.9, we would appreciate a clarification of what is meant to constitute relevant information concerning human rights abuses and reparation mechanisms. Would this entail an obligation for companies to disclose all information possibly relating to their actions in connection with an actual or potential adverse impact? And how would this interact with the information and disclosure provisions contained in Article 4 and 7.3B, including the applicable procedural safeguards? Thank you.

I thank the European Union. Iceland, you have the floor.

Giving me the floor.

Iceland could be supportive of the current formulation, especially the distinction between the right to remedy and reparation. And also we suggest that in order to ensure coherence and consistency with UNGA resolution 6147, to use the reference full and effective reparation in article 1.9 bis. Thank you.

Which is gracia I think Iceland Saudi Arabia.

Price for me to tell you.

Thank you chair as far as the proposal on one night and one nine bis are concerned would like to say the following Saudi Arabia supports the idea to have effective recourse in cases of confirmed harm. The language proposed creates a right to remedies and also related to reparations without linking this to national legal procedures in force. Saudi Arabia would like to suggest that we establish a link between access to the judiciary on one hand and national laws and procedural guarantees on the other hand. It is necessary to ensure that preparation confirms harm or damage that has been confirmed by competent judicial or non-judicial mechanisms that depend on the state. Also, Saudi Arabia suggests that we add 1.9ter that will state that the two definitions in 1.9 and in 1.9bis cannot be interpreted as creating a legal responsibility for a physical or legal person, and that these articles cannot be interpreted as creating a separate system for reparation, separate from what already is established by national legislation. Also, Saudi Arabia suggests, in line with what we previously said, and on 2D, we suggest that we add the expression, the following language, that take into account the specific needs of victims without any distinction. End of quote. Thank you very much.

I thank Saudi Arabia. Brazil.

Thank you, Chair. Quickly, to support your proposal in splitting into articles and we also supportive of retaining gender and age responsive and disability inclusive dimension. One idea could also be to include language regarding non-repetition, but I don't have at this stage any concrete proposal I can forward maybe later to you. Thank you.

Thank you to Brazil. Any other state wishing to take the floor at this stage? The United Kingdom.

Thank you, Chair. As we've set out in previous comments, we do have concerns about what appears to be the creation of a new framing of remedy and reparation under international human rights law, what is effective remedy is to be determined by reference to the specific circumstances of the rights holder. The right to remedy is also already defined under international human rights law. One helpful model here could be article 2 of the ICCPR, which provides for the right to an effective remedy, the provision for the determination of that remedy by a competent authority, including judicial authorities, and for the enforcement of those remedies. Thank you.

I thank the United Kingdom. South Africa.

Thank you, Chair. On article 1.9 and 1.9 bis, your textual proposals, Chair, usefully distinguish the right to an effective remedy from the forms of reparation available, which we support. We recognize that sanctions may form part of these measures, but would welcome clarification of the inclusion of sanctions within reparation, given their distinct purposes and legal requirements. And this is purely from a legal point. We note paragraph 22F of the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Remedy and Reparation. which recognizes judicial and administrative sanctions against persons liable for violations as a measure of satisfaction. So for legal clarity, perhaps the text could reflect this relationship. Thank you, Chair.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you. South Africa. I give the floor to Uruguay.

Thank you very much, Chair Rapporteur. We take a positive view of the proposal to enshrine the right to remedy, and we believe that this language can clarify the instrument and also ensure consistency with the need to ensure access to justice and adequate reparation. The definition of effective remedy should ensure equality and access to judiciary and access to the relevant information related to abuses and available reparation mechanisms. on 1.9 bis, we believe that it could be useful to continue to examine the question of sanctions, especially related to the provisions of an instrument related to determining responsibilities in order to be in line with relevant international standards. Thank you.

I thank Uruguay. Would any other state wish to take the floor? That does not seem to be the case. So we will now turn to statements from civil society and other relevant stakeholders. I give the floor to the International Organization of Employers.

Thank you, Chair. I speak jointly on behalf of IOE and USCIB. We understand the intention to distinguish remedy from reparation, but the redrafting moves further away from the UNGPs. It drops the term effective remedy, the very language of the third pillar in favor of that of the 25 basic principles, which address gross violations of international human rights laws and serious violations of international humanitarian law, not business-related abuses. Moreover, the new definition of reparation still mixes measures of a different nature, such as sanctions, cessations, and guarantees of non-repetition, and has broad qualifiers open to diverging interpretations. Chair, let us recall that the UN GPs deliberately do not define effective remedy or prescribes its forms, as these are matters for each state to determine in accordance with its national law and legal system. As the background itself states, we question the need for such a definition and for a list of forms of reparation in light of the vast international and domestic practice. The redrafting also blurs rules, guarantees of non-repetition must be ensured, and access to information granted without saying by whom. In line with UNGP 25, it is the state duty to ensure that those affected have access to effective remedy through judicial, administrative, legislative, or other appropriate means. This should be clearly distinguished from the role of business enterprises in providing for or cooperating in remediation where they have caused or contributed to adverse impacts in line with UNGP 22. This definition should therefore be redrafted in full alignment with UNGPs 25 to 31. Thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to Georgetown University.

Dear Chair and distinguished delegates, I'm Elena Stefanos-Teka of Georgetown University. This is a statement made on behalf of Change the Law. Change the Law agrees with the Chair's proposals and proposes additional wording. Now, 1.9 would read, "Right to remedy shall mean the right of a victim to equal and effective access to justice, adequate, effective, and prompt reparation of her harm suffered, which may be through judicial, administrative, legislative, or other appropriate means, and access to relevant information concerning human rights abuses and reparation mechanisms." 1.9 bis would read, "Reparations shall mean a range of measures, either singly or in combination, such as restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and sanctions that are adequate, effective and prompt, and that integrate gender and age-responsive and disability-inclusive dimensions." if circumstances so require, the cessation of human rights abuse and appropriate assurance, and may include apologies, injunctions and sanctions, and guarantees of non-repetition, and must be ensured. Thank you, Chair.

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

Thank you for giving me the floor, Mr. Chair. We emphasize that the right to an effective remedy must be meaningful in practice, not merely recognized in principle. Victims need access to justice, appropriate compensation where warranted, rehabilitation, and measures to prevent similar abuses from occurring again. We recommend revising article 1.9 to ensure that the different forms of reparation are clearly addressed and that remedies are accessible, effective, and timely. The final text must respond to the needs of victims and avoid leaving them without a clear path to justice. As a clear reminder, this instrument is targeted towards providing the necessary supports of victims and not leaving any gaps in the protection system where it may be potentially weakened. I thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to Sumek.

Thank you very much, Chair. My name is Alirio Uribemunez from Colombia. I speak on behalf of Xumeken, member of Global Campaign. We support the proposal of the Chair for Article 1.9 that clarifies very important aspects of international law, international human rights law. We highlight the lack of any mention of violation, addition to human rights abuses. We believe that the term violation is used throughout the text Also, we see that the expression, "if circumstances so required." So we need to ensure the guarantees of non-repetition through robust measures and not just partial measures. We present an example of reparation procedures in Colombia, and I've been representing victims for 30 years. In Colombia, there are more than 2.4 million victims of serious human rights violations, forced displacement, disappearances, violence, sexual violence, arbitrary detentions, threats, torture, exile, confinement, recruitment of children, among others. And more than 600 national and transnational companies were mentioned in the judicial files. And copies have been certified to investigate more than 15,000 actors that were responsible for financing or benefited from the armed conflict and land grabbing. The Colombian Truth Commission in '22 proposed that reparation to victims go beyond a merely economic approach to ensure a real comprehensive reparation based on the recognition of dignity, truth as a restorative value, and the strengthening of transformative measures. Truth is proposed to be a reparative act and recognition of collective and individual responsibilities and measures to ensure dignity for victims. Measures for comprehensive reparation for a binding instrument can be compensation for damage suffered, with emphasis on vulnerable populations, for example, victims of sexual violence; rehabilitation to strengthen psychosocial support and physical and mental health of victims; restitution, return of land and property; dispossessed during the conflict, satisfaction, acts of recognition of historical memory, monuments, public apologies, and promotion of spaces such as museums of memory, and guarantees of non-repetition, which represent structural reforms so that violence does not happen again. Also, their institutional and public policy reforms in the case of Colombia to move forward to complete the peace process, transform drug policies focusing on regulation, and create institutions, for example, Ministry of Peace and Coexistence, and give continuity to the recommendations made by the Truth Commission. Thank you.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much. I give the floor to DKA Austria.

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of DKA Austria, ECPAT International and the Human Rights Clinics of UFMG and PUC-Parana. We welcome the Chair's proposals on article 1.9. Regarding article 1.9 bis, we suggest adding "child-sensitive" after "age-responsive", cumulatively, such as proposed by the Chair in article 2.D, and that will be further discussed in this session. We believe that adding a reference to child sensitive alongside age responsive and disability inclusive would help ensure a more comprehensive and consistent approach, taking into account the specific needs and vulnerabilities of different groups in accessing effective remedies and reparations. The refinement also ensures reparations address both immediate harm and long-term intergeneration impacts. Also, this addition would improve coherence between this instrument with international human rights law. The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration from 2018 presents a hybrid and cross-cutting approach, employing age-sensitive for intersectional regulatory review and child-sensitive for the comprehensive protection of children and adolescents. General comment number 7 by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities uses age appropriate to describe the need for adapted consultation and political participation procedures and child friendly to qualify accessible information aimed at children. The term child sensitive was used in general comments number 16 and number 26 by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child to characterize protection and reparation systems and mechanisms. encompassing complaint procedures and civil, criminal or administrative mechanisms aimed at remedying harm. Including child-sensitive in the treaty's definitions is essential to ensure consistent interpretation and the systematic consideration of children's specific rights, needs and vulnerabilities throughout the instrument. We therefore support the cumulative formulation proposed by the Chair under article 2D and consider that the same approach should be reflected in article 1.9. Thank you.

I thank ICA Austria. I give the floor to FIAN International.

Thank you, Chair. I make this statement on behalf of FIAN International and ESCRnet. would like to illustrate the importance of articles 1.9 and 1.9 bis through the Kawai case in Uganda. Chair, in August 2001, the inhabitants of four villages in Mubende, in central Uganda, approximately 4,000 people representing more than 400 families, were violently evicted from the land of over 2,000 hectares they had been living on for years. and since then the land has been turned into a coffee plantation by a subsidiary of Kaweri Coffee Plantation that belongs to a company based in Germany, the Neumann Kaffee Group. The affected families filed a lawsuit in 2002, yet it has taken more than two decades before compensation began, and this has only happened for a few families. Many of the victims died waiting for justice. Meanwhile, the company continued operating and generating profits from the disputed land. Even the compensation eventually provided did not include interest, despite the prolonged suffering of the affected families. This case, Chair, demonstrates the importance of having effective and prompt reparation. It is not merely a theoretical requirement, it also illustrates the importance of measures to prevent continuing harm, including the possibility of halting activities on disputed land while judicial proceedings are ongoing. The consequences of these evictions extend beyond those that are directly displaced. It includes relatives, neighbors, and surrounding communities that have to provide shelter, food, care, placing additional burdens on their livelihoods and well-being. Evictees' dependence on others disrupts the cohesion and well-being of community members, and it adds pressure to the surrounding peasant communities. It is therefore key that the definition of victims under 1.1, which is key to the definition of remedy, also extends to affected communities. Turning to article 1.9, therefore, we note the change of title from remedy to right to remedy. We stress that this definition must not narrow existing international human rights standards, including those under ICCPR, or create confusion by suggesting that the treaty establishes a new right rather than recognizing an existing one. Similarly, for Article 1.9 bis, we note the new definition of reparation, which should also be aligned with international human rights law standards and interpretation, including the UN Human Rights Committee and UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation, and guarantees of non-recurrence. We welcome the inclusion of disability-inclusive dimensions, while emphasizing that access to justice must respond to the needs of those affected groups as well. We further call for the deletion of "if circumstances so require" from the provision of cessation and guarantees of non-repetition. Such conditional language risks weakening the obligations to ensure that ongoing human rights abuses cease. will also want to challenge strongly the assertion made in the room that the United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights don't define remedy. These principles dedicate an entire section, pillar three, access to remedy, to elaborating its various dimensions, structuring and providing remedy for business-related human rights abuses. The commentary to principle 25 explicitly identifies different forms of remedy, including restitution, rehabilitation, compensation, sanctions and guarantees of non-repetition. To suggest that they do not address the meaning and content of remedies is therefore misleading. Finally, and importantly, the definitions of right to remedy and reparation should closely be reviewed to ensure coherence and alignment with their use in other relevant articles throughout the treaty. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. I give the floor to International Trade Union Confederation.

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the Global Labour Movement. We support the suggested new language breaking down the definition into two segments, namely a right to a remedy and reparation. We agree that the new text brings further alignment with international human rights standards, while also introducing conceptual clarity. However, Chair, it would be important to take account of any consequential amendments that may need to be made in light of this change. Thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to Franciscans International.

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the Feminists for the Binding Treaty and ESCRnet. We have a few clarifying questions and points around Article 1.9 and 1.9 bis on the right to remedy. The proposal to change the definition of remedy to the right to remedy can implicate other articles which specifically highlight victims' access to remedies. It will likely impact other articles where there is a specific mention of remedy, including access to remedy or remedies, including article 15.7 that was discussed yesterday. How will these be addressed and what will be the implications on remedies available? We welcome the explicit inclusion of both remedy and reparation in the proposals around article 1.9. Gender responsiveness can be particularly helpful. It not only helps to identify the existing gender stereotypes and inequalities, but also takes proactive measures to address them. It is a helpful framing when we discuss access to justice, information and reparations. Such an approach will only serve to strengthen the LBI, which needs to take into account the harms caused by abuses and violations, including compounded and aggravated harms. We are concerned that the integration of the dimension of inclusivity as proposed in 1.9 bis, gender, age, responsive and disability inclusive in the paragraph on reparation would limit its positive effect to reparations only versus an alternative placement in the overarching right to remedy as reflected in 1.9, as this seems more all-encompassing. We understand the right to remedy to be far more expansive and reparation seems to be one part of remedy in the definition. Chair, we have an additional clarifying question. Are restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, such as cessation of abuse, apologies, and sanctions implicitly included in reparation? If not, they should be explicitly mentioned, including apologies, as these are necessary reparation mechanisms that can be useful to victims. A victim-centered approach should necessarily include reparations available that takes into account what the victims need and require. Finally, we suggest the deletion of the qualifier if circumstances so require in the last sentence on reparation, also raised by Palestine in the current session. Qualifying the cessation of abuse and guarantee of non-repetition defeats the purpose of this LBI. I thank you.

Muchas gracias.

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

Thank you very much. Chair, Marcela Ramos from Chile. I speak on behalf of Global Forum of Fishing Peoples and the International Group for Support of Fish Workers, both members of the global campaign. We praise the new proposal made by the Chair for 1.9 that clarifies very important concepts related to international human rights law, defining both right to remedy as well as reparation. Nevertheless, the Chair does not refer to articles 1.9 and 1.9 bis to violations, including together with human rights abuses. believe that we should be consistent in the use of the term violation throughout the treaty. Also, we request the deletion in article 1.9, the expression, "if circumstances so require," because an end of violations of human rights and extending of adequate safeguards and guarantees of non-repetitions should be unconditional obligations and not measures that are subject to certain circumstances. This is of particular importance for our peoples and territories, and especially for fish workers. We must ensure that transnational corporations that have used our ecosystems to make millions assume the responsibility that they have for violating our human rights and ensure reparations and regenerate land and sea in order to be able to restore the cultural and biological heritage that was lost as a result of industrial activities. This is the case of Chile, where for 50 years of the salmon industry in the south of the country, we have seen numerous violations of human rights. For example, since 2013, to today, there were more than 100 labor accidents involving deaths and also there 400 salmon concessions in protected areas of Patagonia. The rights covered by this article should guarantee comprehensive reparations that includes the end to violations and adequate guarantees for non-repetition. Thank you.

Thank you. That was the last speaker on my list. I thank everyone for their contributions. And I have taken note of these. Now we turn to proposal 18, related to relevant state agencies of Article 1.10. This definition includes judicial bodies, competent authorities, and other institutions and services dealing with administrative supervisions and application of measures that are provided for in this instrument. As you will remember, during the 11th session, as we considered article 12, elements for analysis were requested related to the reference to State agencies, central authorities, or legal or non-legal mechanisms, judicial and non-judicial mechanisms. And it was stated that the expression state agencies may not be sufficiently precise to designate the type of authority that is provided for in cases of mutual legal assistance. And during the intercessional thematic consultations, several delegations supported the deletion of this definitions. In this context, it's necessary to see that numerous instruments of international human rights law, international law in general, recognize that each state complies with its international obligations through relevant organs and mechanisms of the country, including judicial authorities, administrative and legislative authorities, as reflected in Article 4 of the Articles of the Responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts. The instrument will follow the same focus, leaving it up to each state's party to distribute the functions of the different bodies. For this reason, and taking into account the fact that it is not necessary to define concepts that already exist in international law and that they will not have any specific significance for this instrument, the chair rapporteur suggests we delete article 1.10 without prejudice to the fact that the operative provisions of the text that use this expression, like for example article 12, states may consider the most adequate terminology in each case. So with this introduction, would like to open the floor first to States to make their comments on the proposal 18 related to article 1.10.

Palestine, please.

Thank you, Excellency. We support the Chair's proposal to delete this definition. the definition of relevant state agencies replaced courts and non-judicial mechanisms throughout the text. That substitution is problematic because a remedy for human rights abuses and violations can be pursued administratively without judicial recourse. And removing the explicit reference to courts and non-judicial mechanisms would undermine access to justice for affected communities. With the definition deleted, the substitution should be rejected across the text, and the references to courts and non-judicial mechanisms restored. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Brazil, please.

Thank you, Chair. We would favor retaining the definition as we believe that it could provide additional legal certainty to domestic regulatory authorities, labor inspectorates, and state-based non-judicial grievance mechanism. However, we could be flexible regarding its deletion if the chair rapporteur believes it's the best way forward. as long as its functional content is preserved in articles 7, 8, and 12, in particular regarding non-judicial mechanisms, as the colleague from Palestine mentioned. Thank.

You.

Thank you very much. Would any other state like to take the floor? That's not the case. We will move on to the interventions from civil society organizations and other relevant stakeholders. I give the floor to Global Forum for the Defense of the Less Privileged.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, once again for giving me the floor. We welcome the deletion of article 1.10 if the responsibilities of relevant state authorities are clearly addressed elsewhere in the instrument. However, removing this definition must not create uncertainty about which authorities are responsible for implementation, supervision, and enforcement. We recommend ensuring that the operative provisions clearly identify the relevant responsibilities of judicial, regulatory, and administrative authorities as appropriate. This is important because victims need accessible institutions capable of receiving complaints, addressing abuses and helping secure effective remedies. I thank you.

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

You, Chair. I speak on behalf of IOE and USCIB. We are not supportive of the deletion of this definition, which for us lacks a clear rationale in the background. In an instrument on business and human rights, clearly identifying the role of the state matters. States are the primary duty bearers under international human rights law, and the state's duty to protect, including through access to effective remedy, is the very foundation of the UN Guiding Principles. This proposal continues a troubling pattern of minimizing pillar one of the guiding principles while shifting ever, ever more responsibility onto business. Relevant state agencies, including courts, regulatory authorities, and state-based non-judicial mechanisms are central to the effective implementation of this instrument and to access to remedy. Rather than being deleted, this definition should be clarified by referring to state-based judicial and non-judicial grievance mechanism in line with the UNGPs.

Thank you.

Thank you. I recognize the International Trade Union Confederation.

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the Global Labour Movement. Chair, we do not have a strong view on the deletion of the definition of relevant state agencies, but we will be interested to understand consequential implication for the rest of the text, if any, especially in relation to Article 7, 9 and 12. Thank you.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you. and give the floor to Friends of the Earth International.

Mr. Chair, I will be brief as well. I speak on behalf of Friends of the Earth International, a member of the Global Campaign. The updated draft introduced a definition of relevant state agencies and uses it to replace the terms "courts" and "non-judicial mechanisms" throughout the text. This substitution is problematic. We therefore welcome the Chair's proposals to delete this article. We also stress that the substitutions made throughout the text should be rejected, as already proposed by Panama, Honduras, Colombia, and Mexico at the ninth session. I thank you, Chair. Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much. This was the last speaker on the list, and I'm grateful to all of you for your contributions.

Very well, thank you everybody.

Before we move on to reviewing Article 2, I'd like to offer the floor to the legal experts who are supporting the Chair-Rapporteur, to give them an opportunity to respond to the questions that have been raised during this meeting. There's the question of China on article 1.1 that calls for more clarity on the meaning and scope of the notion of affected communities and those who intervene to assist victims. Secondly, there's the question raised by the International Trade Union Confederation on proposal 14. the question is whether the drafting and the definition as they stand appropriately describe the concept of global value chains for the effective application of the legally binding instrument. I would invite experts therefore to share, if they deem relevant, any general comments on article 1 in light of the comments we have heard in the room. I turn the floor to the legal.

Experts.

Thank you, Chair-Rapporteur. We'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for the opportunity to take part in the process and to express some comments on the discussions underway in the room. I'd like to begin by thanking the delegation of China for the question. We indicate that the term "affected communities" has been promoted in the context of the negotiation, and we believe that it has a specific impact for protecting human rights. Similarly, the term "group of individuals" was Although it might have a differentiated scope, in general terms we can consider that a group of persons, as included in the current draft of the instrument, that is reflected in the basic principles on reparation with the word collectively, this could cover affected communities. However, there are some rights which are not only used in the sense of a group of individuals. but rather rights that are exercised collectively because of the nature of some groups or communities that have shared characteristics. Various legal instruments within international human rights law have recognised collective rights in conventions and statements or declarations. The first example of this is the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. and in article 1, it explicitly refers to racial or ethnic groups or certain individuals, and in 2, to the state duty not to interfere or engage in any act that could constitute discrimination against individuals, groups of individuals or institutions. From that point, we have looked at rights that could be addressed individually or collectively, as well as a state duty to protect. That is relevant to discern exactly how international obligations should be conveyed in domestic legislation through a specific instrument. In this case, it is crucial to include the international instrument in step with national practice without diminishing its effectiveness. That means that, in implementing an international obligation, states can use certain legal features to recognise, according to their own context and legal system, the way in which certain rights are exercised or protected, including, in the case of groups of individuals, a collective or communities. For example, in the protection of environmental rights, which exist in many countries, or the rights of indigenous communities or people of African descent, they often enjoy rights that are exercised not just individually but also collectively. In both cases, any civil litigation or legal systems in many states recognise both individual action and collective action. In light of this, we believe that the term that has been proposed in this discussion, affected communities, can include a group of individuals, but also acknowledges the existence of rights that can be exercised collectively. Insofar as individuals that intervene to assist victims, this can be interpreted as an explicit reference to human rights defenders or environmental defenders. Their recognition can be found in resolution 53/174 of 2018 that was adopted by consensus by the General Assembly. And here, this arises directly from the principles on reparation that was also adopted by the General Assembly in 2005. To this end, I would like to highlight, as a number of delegations said yesterday and today, it's important to use concepts that are already defined in international law, in particular on the basis of decisions that have been adopted by the international community of states. With that, I'll give the floor to my colleague, Michaela Barnes, to answer the question on value chains. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, colleagues, and thank you to the Global Labour Movement for the question. The current draft of the LBI mentions value chains in article 1.6 in the context of business relationships. The Chair's redrafting proposal maintains reference to value chains in the same provision. As to what the concept of a value chain might entail, according to the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights, a business enterprise's value chain encompasses the activities that convert input into output by adding value. It includes entities with which it has a direct or indirect business relationship and which either supply products or services that contribute to the enterprise's own products or services, or receive products or services from the enterprise. The concept of a value chain thus implies the presence of certain business relationships. Furthermore, this concept is not limited to first tier relationships in value chains, but can encompass more indirect relationships, such as those with entities that are in the second tier of a value chain, such as the supply of raw materials to direct suppliers of the business enterprise and beyond. These business relationships can take many different legal and organizational forms. It may be relevant to distinguish between relationships that are based on contractual relationships and those that arise as a result of shareholdings. The existence of a business relationship does not depend on the ability of one party to control or influence the other. Consequently, a business relationship may exist between a parent company and a subsidiary in which it has only a minority shareholding, or between a company and another entity with which the company has no contractual relationship, but which is directly linked in some way to that company's operations products or services. For this purpose, it may be worth considering whether the current definition under Article 1.4 of the LBI and Proposal 14, as well as that included in current Article 1.5 as well as Proposal 13, already encompass business relationships that may fall under the concept of a value chain. As such, as discussed, the concept of a value chain would appear to be broad enough to cover all types of value chains, including those with a global span. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon, friends and colleagues. We thought it might be helpful to consider the provisions we've been discussing today against a hypothetical case scenario to see how they would apply and whether they would work. So the scenario that I'm going to suggest is one where we have a multinational gold mining company which is headquartered in the global north and has its operations in the global south. And the relationship between the parent and subsidiary is such that the parent exercises a significant degree of control and influence over the subsidiary. And what has been happening on this mine for many years is that local villagers have been going onto the mine and taking bits of gold-bearing rock. And the mine, in response to this, the mine security has called the local police who have shot and killed a number of the villagers. And this has been going on for a long time. And despite the brutality, the demonstrated brutality of the local police, the mine continues to call the police and the parent company, which knows what is going on, fails to stop the subsidiary from doing this. Ultimately, the villagers are keen to prevent this from going on, and the families also want to be compensated for the deaths. I turn to the definitions that we have been discussing today, there are clearly victims, as under 1.1. There have been adverse human rights impacts in the sense that harm has been suffered, which has entailed the reduction of an internationally recognised human right. Human rights abuse has occurred in the sense that a significant cause of the adverse human rights impacts has been acts and omissions on the part of the companies, the parent and the subsidiaries, which are the result or involve business activities of those companies. In terms of business activities, under the proposed new definition, specific reference is made to extraction. Here, we are talking about mining of gold, which is clearly extraction. Just an interesting point on human rights abuse. There was a discussion, a lot of discussion this morning about abuse being the right term when it involves business and violations, the correct term when the abuse stems from states activities. But here you have the combined effect where The direct perpetrators were state forces, but there is an involvement of business. That is an interesting combination of abuse and violation, which highlights a potential issue. business activities of a transnational character, well, in this situation, all three criteria in 1.5 are satisfied. So you have the business activity being undertaken in more than one jurisdiction by the parent and the subsidiary. A significant part of the activity being carried out in more than one state, and although part of the activity is in one state, the effect is in another, namely the human rights abuses. The business relationship, well, clearly parent and subsidiary involved here, so that is satisfied too. Going on to 1.8, which is human rights due diligence, which is the central issue in terms of prevention, clearly, both states, the home state and the host state of the company, have obligations under international law to prevent harm. And for the two states concerned, in the case of the host state, that would entail regulating and controlling the behavior of the local police and of the subsidiary company, which is a host state company. And in the case of the home state, which has an obligation to prevent harm not just within its own jurisdiction but extraterritorially too, there's an obligation then to take steps to moderate the conduct of the parent company. Now, when it comes to the two companies, the parent company is required to apply human rights due diligence to, in particular, to control the behavior of the subsidiary. And the subsidiary too has human rights due diligence obligations under this proposed treaty. Regarding access to remedy under 1.9, from the villagers' perspective, they need access to a court Let us assume that, in this instance, they are not able to obtain access to justice locally for a variety of reasons. That means that they need to be able to obtain access to justice in the home state courts. so there needs to be access to a remedy there. But that would also entail, because the claim in the host state courts would be against the parent company, a route to establishing legal liability against the parent company. So that's something that comes into article 8. And now that's, I think, a not an unusual scenario, but let us just add a level of elaboration to this to make it even more topical, because although this is hypothetical, it is obviously based on real-life situations. Let us imagine that this multinational company exports its gold. and exports it to a state where there is an accreditation body, which is established by the industry, which certifies the gold as having been ethically produced. And without this accreditation, it's not possible to export the gold to that country. And this accreditation body despite all the evidence that is publicly available about what has been happening to villagers encroaching onto this mine, certifies this gold. Well, that then gives rise to issues around the responsibility of the accreditation body. And I think if one then goes back through the same exercise, looking at these provisions in the treaty, well, the position is the same. when one looks at victims, adverse human rights impact, human rights abuse. And now business activity. Now the business activity here of the accreditation body is that it charges businesses, gold mining companies, a fee for the accreditation. That's its business. And what would be said about the accreditation company is that if it had done its job properly, then it would have refused the accreditation because of what had happened at the mine. and the mining company would then have been in a position where it couldn't export the gold, and in order to carry on its business, it would have had to improve its human rights conduct, the company would have. Had it done that, then it's possible that further deaths and injuries could have been avoided. So that's the argument against the accreditation company. And in terms of the business relationship then, there is a provision in 1.6 for a business relationship to involve a relationship which includes the value chain. And given that the accreditation company is charging the gold mining company for the accreditation, then I think one could argue that quite compellingly that the accreditation company was part of the value chain. So that's a more complex situation. but I think it hopefully highlights how this treaty can work in different situations. That's not in any way to detract from some of the complexities that have been raised today, particularly around, I think, environmental cases, but hopefully it can be seen to be workable. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Sir Kinda Mohammedi has the floor.

Good afternoon, delegates and colleagues. There was one additional question that was referred to us by the chair that was raised by the delegation of Pakistan yesterday on 14.5, but I realize the delegation of Pakistan might not be in the room now, so you might want to defer dealing with the question till later, or do you want to address it now? As you wish. Address it now.

I think you can go ahead, please.

Okay. So the delegation of Pakistan addressed the consequences or raised the question in relation to the consequences of lack of compatibility between the treaties that are addressed under 14.5, meaning what would result in the case of a finding of lack of compatibility. So in this regard, some elements to account for. First of all, as currently drafted, the provision 14.5 would operate generally within the framework set by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. And in that regards, the this provision would provide guidance from states on how human rights would be systematically integrated or systemically integrated when interacting with other legal regimes that are covered under this provision, which mentions trade and investment, but also other treaties that are relevant to the legally binding instrument. So as noted in more details in the intervention by the group of experts last October, This guidance would build on what is provided for under Article 31.3.C of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in relation to the interpretation of treaties. Now, under the current drafting of 14.5, compatibility is addressed in relation to interpretation and implementation only. Thus, it specifically provides guidance to the authorities involved in these two aspects. The article as currently drafted does not set an obligation on revisiting existing treaties. In relation to interpretation, thus, this guidance would be to the authorities interpreting or applying the concerned rules, such as courts, adjudicators interpreting the treaties. In relation to investment treaties, there was a lot of mention yesterday of the arbitrators, for example, in the case of investor state dispute settlement that would be applying these treaties or enforcing these treaties. When it comes to implementation, the guidance would concern authorities involved in implementing the covered agreements, such as the implementation of trade and investment agreements. So if we want to think of the consequences of non-compatibility, A finding of non-compatibility in interpretation or implementation of the treaties could be determined by state authorities responsible for implementing the legally binding instrument or other relevant human rights instruments to the LBI. This could be one case. Another case could be that a finding of non-compatibility could come in the observations, for example, of the committees, the committee that will be established as part of the institutional arrangements of the LBI, because the committees will be reviewing state practice and giving observations in this regard. So, basically, what would result from these kinds of findings is the standard practice, which we find also in relation to other human rights treaties, that the state will have to take action in order to advance towards fulfilling its obligations, and in this case, achieving compatibility. So, the action required in this regard will depend on the nature of the issue, under consideration and whether it relates to implementation or interpretation. If the issue relates to implementation, such as, for example, implementing an investment agreement through providing certain incentives to the covered investors or investments, the responsible state authorities in this context will have to review the measure in light of the assessment of the human rights implications of this measure or the human rights implications of the kind of treatment that is given to the investor. In the case of interpretation, if we are talking, for example, about interpreting a treaty among two or more parties, the relevant state authorities could be required to work with other parties to that agreement to ensure that the interpretation is done in a compatible way. And here, for example, there is ample existing practice in this regard, whereby if we want to talk about investment treaties, we can see that there is practice where the state parties to investment treaties, including bilateral and multilateral investment treaties, frequently issue unilateral, joint, or multilateral letters, declarations, or other interpretative instruments to guide or control how the interpretation of their treaties is undertaken. And this is part of the role of states as masters of their own treaties. So these are some kind of examples just for the purpose of illustration of how action will be undertaken in the case or as a consequence of a finding of incompatibility. Thank you.

I thank our legal experts. Mr. Contadavieira and others for their very useful contributions and legal clarifications. Now we will continue with proposal 19 related to article 2. Statement of purpose. The objective of these amendments is to ensure compliance with the mandate of resolution 26/9 of the Human Rights Council. This article covers the five objectives of the instrument clarifying facility application and implementation of states' obligations, clarify, ensure respect, responsibility of enterprises, prevent abuses, ensure access to justice and reparation, and strengthen mutual legal assistance and international cooperation. In the inter-sessional thematic consultations, Many delegations supported the need to preserve the distinction between the obligations of states and responsibilities of enterprises in line with the guiding principles, while other delegations and organizations supported the reference to obligations of enterprises. Different delegations and organizations also were in favor of keeping the expression, ensure the respect and realization in order to ensure effective implementation. And also what was discussed was mitigation and applicable qualifications related to access to justice. In this respect, it's necessary to recall that the updated draft limits the legal obligations of enterprises to the internal situation through the need or the obligation of states to regulate and in line with the guiding principles, enterprises do not have any obligations that are derived directly from international law on human rights, but they have the responsibility to respect them. During the inter-Sessional consultations, it was said that there are several elements where we need to highlight that most international treaties establish the duty to guarantee rights. And this means the expression to facilitate effective implementation can be interpreted as a duty of less intensity or less legal force. And some entrepreneurial activities cannot prevent fully abuses and it is necessary to keep the reference to mitigation and also refer to justice that responds to age and includes disabilities in line with article 13 of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and extend the protection that goes beyond children and include older persons and these elements, the Chair-Rapporteur proposed the following specific amendments. First, in subparagraph B, referred to the responsibility of transnational enterprises and other enterprises using the terminology of resolution 26/9. Second, in subparagraph C, to add the expression, particularly those of transnational character in line with subparagraphs and, and replace the notion of enforceability with enforcement. Third, in paragraph, to add that justice should also be age responsive and include disability, be disability inclusive. in line with the proposal that is contained in article 1.9 bis. So, paragraphs a and e are kept in the current form of drafting. Now, with this introduction, I would like to first open the floor to States with comments on proposal 19 related to amendments to article 2.

Arabia Saudita.

Saudi Arabia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Regarding the proposals.

Two amendments on paragraphs 2B and 2D, the Kingdom of.

Saudi Arabia reiterates its position to keep paragraph D, which confirms.

The access to justice and means or remedial means in general.

Without determining specific categories and excluding others, and without adding concepts that did not enjoy a wide international consensus. We propose to replace the specific categories with the term, I quote, "victims without distinction," end of quote, in.

Such a way that will ensure inclusivity and equality between victims. and applying the same formulation in Articles 1.9 bis and 15.7, for the sake of consistency.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia also observes that the phrase "ensure respect and.

Fulfilment", etc., at the beginning of paragraph b may.

Give the impression.

That the, uh, countries will have an obligation as a result of the conduct of private entities and we re- uh, propose replacing it with, I quote, "promoting respect," end of quote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Muchas gracias.

I thank Saudi Arabia. The European Union, please.

Thank you. Regarding Article 2, we reiterate our concern on emphasizing business activities of a transnational character.

In the statement of purpose, including the accompanying considerations.

The prevention of abuses and protection of victims should extend to business activities generally. A consistent and streamlined reference to vulnerability and marginalization with examples in the substantial provisions could also be worthwhile.

We expressly welcome the specific reference to gender and age responsive, child sensitive, disability inclusive and victim centered justice. This language should be preserved and reflected consistently in the relevant substantive provisions.

Thank you.

I thank the European Union. Iceland, you have the.

Iceland looks favourably upon retaining the term "responsibilities of business enterprises" as it builds upon the approach of the guiding principles where legal obligations for companies arise through domestic measures. Having said that, we do respectfully caution against narrowing sub-paragraph b to transnational corporations and other business enterprises as the responsibility to protect human rights or respect human rights, sorry, applies to all business enterprises.

Thank you.

I thank Iceland. Cuba, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. Cuba values the efforts taken to align Article 2 with scope contained in resolution 26/9, especially in subparagraph B. We believe to achieve this objective, we help us have a balanced and clear document and this respect in order to comply with the suggestions of the Presidents, we suggest the language that is subparagraphs a, b, and c, because such language will cover all business activities and not simply the activities of transnational character or activities of transnational corporations. So we can support the proposals of the chair, especially those aimed at having access to justice that takes into account gender, age, is child sensitive and disability inclusive. And we can support other proposals that will enjoy consensus and that the chair would find appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you. Cuba I give the floor to the state of Qatar.

With respect to Article 2 our delegation welcomes the effort to clarify the objectives of the proposed lbi and to strengthen the reference to transnational corporations and other business Enterprises and sub paragraph B Notwithstanding, we consider that the statement of purpose should be closely aligned with the phrasing of the scope of application eventually agreed upon under Article 3. We would also like to emphasize the significance of maintaining a clear definition between the international legal obligations of states and the responsibilities of business enterprises, which are ordinarily implemented through applicable legal frameworks. Hence, our delegation supports for the refinement of Article 2 to ensure that it reflects the agreed scope of the LPI without introducing ambiguity concerning the nature or sources of the obligations involved. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the State of Qatar. I give the floor to China.

Thank you, Chair.

On the relevant issues, China has a consistent position, which is our negotiations should follow the mandate of the resolution 26/9.

Therefore, on Article 2 and also on Article 3 that would be under discussion lately, China believes that we need to take appropriate wording to limit the purpose of the LBI and the scope of application to transnational corporate activities. On 2B, we suggest to amend as following. To clarify and facilitate the responsibility to respect human rights. so as to align with the wording of the UN GPS. As to 2D, China believes that the current wording has still some vagueness and legal uncertainty. We'd like to propose the textual proposal for your discussion.

Access to effective.

Adequate and timely remedy for victims of human rights abuses in the context of business activities of a.

Transnational character in a justice process sensitive to the protection of women, children, and other persons in vulnerable situation.

I thank you, Chair.

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

Thank you, Chair. On 2.1 and, we reiterate our preference for the wording "business activities of a transnational character." On 2.1, we reiterate that a binding treaty should speak of the obligations of business enterprises, not only their responsibilities. On 2.1C, we reiterate our proposal to cover environmental harm and conflict-affected areas and to require that mechanisms be binding. On 2.1D, we welcome your reference to the age and disability inclusive language. On 2.1E, we reiterate our position that abuses must be prevented and fully repaired, not mitigated, only risks can be mitigated. Thank you.

I thank the State of Palestine. I give the floor to the United Kingdom.

The UK reserves our position on this article, but generally we support the EU and Iceland's earlier comments here. We do not agree that the particular focus should be on transnational corporations, but rather should apply to all business enterprises. Thank you.

I thank the United Kingdom. I give the floor to Brazil.

Thank you, Chair, for the floor. appreciate the streamlining of Article 2. However, we reiterate our position to insist on replacing the word "responsibilities" on B with "obligations," similar to what Palestine has mentioned. Establishing that business enterprises have legal obligations under international human rights law strengthens accountability and protects rights holders. However, under Article B, we can go along with the transnational corporations and other business enterprises as proposed, as it reflects language of 26/9. In Article D, we welcome as well age responsible and disability inclusive. We do miss, however, a reference to other vulnerable groups. I trust China has mentioned something like this in their proposal. I need to take a further look on it. But yeah, maybe it would need some redrafting, saying responsive to gender, disability and other vulnerable groups or something like this. And on article C, we welcome the enforcement, but we reserve a position on particularly those of transnational character. Thank you.

I thank Brazil. Uruguay, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair Rapporteur. We take a positive view of the amendments that you proposed to Article 2, especially those that contribute to specify the objectives of the instrument and strengthen its internal consistency. On subparagraph B, we believe that we need to have a clear distinction of the responsibilities of transnational corporations under international human rights law and the obligations of states. That is our position in these negotiations on C. We take note of the reference to those of a transnational character. So, we should be consistent in the interpretation of this reference, and this should not be considered as any limitation obligations related to other business activities. We also appreciate the adjustments introduced in subparagraph D that is focused on victims and take into account gender, age, the situation of children and persons with disabilities. And finally, we understand that the consideration of this subparagraph should be taken in line with Article 3.1, so that the final language preserves the full scope of the mandate of this instrument, avoiding any gaps in protection. Thank you.

I thank you, Uruguay. Any other State wishing to take the floor at this stage? Japan, you have the floor.

Just to remind you once again, as stated in the general statement, Japan's comments are non-exhaustive and not making comments on certain parts does not mean that we agree on those parts either. On Article 2, we noticed that Article 2, subsection E, refers to mutual legal assistance. Mutual legal assistance in criminal matters is intended for providing evidence for criminal investigations and trials, not for preventing and mitigating human rights abuses, as indicated in the Article 2. Therefore, if Article 2, subsection includes mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, it is inappropriate here to use the expression to prevent and mitigate human rights abuses. That considered, we suggest replacing this expression with to implement the measures referred to in this LBI. Please note that this proposed revision is premised on the provisions establishing criminal measures, such as Article 8, being revised to use appropriate wording. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Japan. Any other state wishing to take the floor? South Africa, you have the floor.

We are in the main happy with the direction of Article 2. We welcome in Article 2B in line with the wording in Resolution 269, the specific reference. and view favorably the gender, age, child and disability inclusive language in article 2D. We would prefer in article 2C to have reference specifically to business activities of a transnational character. Thank you.

I thank South Africa. Any other state asking for the floor at this moment? If that is not the case, then let us turn to the statements of representatives of civil society and other relevant stakeholders. I give the floor to Center for Constitutional Rights.

I speak today on behalf of the Center for Constitutional Rights and their client and partner, the Descendants Project in the United States. We believe Article 2 should also add preventing corporate capture of public institutions as a stated purpose of this legally binding instrument. We stand alongside frontline communities in Louisiana's river parishes, lands now known as Cancer Alley, where plantations exploited enslaved people, and today their descendants pay the price of overindustrialization. Where our bayous, cemeteries, and towns are rapidly disappearing, where oil and gas companies sued by our local elected leaders over our rapid coastal land loss, financed opponents who defeated those leaders and immediately reversed the decision to sue. Where intense pressure from businesses led Louisiana's governor to recently cancel two multi-billion dollar diversions that could have saved our towns and villages. In sessions prior, delegates denied the existence of environmental rights in international law. During this session, a state party to the ICESCR denied the existence of collective rights. one cannot deny that collective rights exist while defending the rights of a collective entity known as a company. From Cancer Alley to Latin America to Northern England, our institutions are being bent to a breaking point for profit. And LBI must directly address that. I thank the chair.

Thank you very much.

Give the floor to Sidse.

Thank you, Chair Rapporteur. I'm speaking on behalf of the Council of the Maya People in Guatemala, SIDSE, and its members. I am a Popol Maya woman from Guatemala, and I want to talk about the experience of areas which have suffered from the impact of extractive industry projects. We need to have a treaty that establishes limits between business activity that threatens life and the dignity of Mother Earth. And we urge the state of Guatemala to play a key role in these negotiations to stand up for human rights and defense of life, land and our natural shared assets in order to ensure the welfare of its peoples. The Marlin mine in San Marcos, the mining project Phoenix in Estor Isabel, and the case of Yichkisis in Wet Wet Tanango are a few examples that have led to water pollution, air and ground pollution, and has led to serious socio-environmental conflicts where communities have reported projects that were authorised and developed without having obtained free, prior and informed consent. That is why it is necessary that the treaty becomes a tool that changes the reality of people who are living on the ground. To achieve that task, we propose five goals. One, the instrument must close gaps that today allow for abuse to go unpunished. Two, it must establish clear, enforceable obligations for companies and supply chains, and guarantee effective access to justice and reparation, including when a company has its own whether it is a parent company or a subsidiary. An instrument must establish human rights and place them above economic interests, and recognise the rights of indigenous communities, such as the right to participate and the right to free, prior and informed consent, in keeping with international standards. It must especially protect those who defend human rights and the environment. It must address environmental and climate impacts from a human rights perspective, as indicated by the International Court of justice. Against this backdrop, we value the proposal from the chair rapporteur to maintain prevention and access to justice and access to remedy as fundamental goals of the instrument, including the focus on gender, age, children, disability and victims in the declaration and the statement of purpose. Similarly, we would be in favour of increased emphasis on the provision and the goals that I have mentioned, we would like to highlight two specific aspects. First, the instrument must clearly establish robust state regulation of business activities throughout the global value chain. Secondly, we believe that the reference to mitigating human rights violations as a goal should be replaced by putting an end to, terminating or halting We also advocate for a drafting that firmly places at the centre and the focus on prevention and access to remedy, at the same time as it guarantees comprehensive coverage of all of the global value chains. I thank you.

Thank you very much. I recognise the IOE.

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of IOE and USCIB. We welcome that the redrafting retains responsibilities in Article 2B, as many delegations supported. Businesses have responsibilities, states have obligations. However, the background to this proposal states that business enterprises do not currently have obligations deriving directly from international human rights laws. This is misleading. Business do not operate in a legal vacuum. It is bound in every jurisdiction where it operates to comply with local law, which includes human rights and related laws. We have said it before, but we will say it again. The real challenge lies in the effective enforcement of those laws, not in an absence of obligations. Additionally, just like a number of states delegation, we regret that the redrafting extends the focus on transnational companies. already present in Article 2A and 2E to Articles 2B and 2C. This will create a two-tier system in which transnational companies face different requirements than domestic companies operating in the same market and overlooks that most human rights challenges arise in domestic economies, including the informal sector. These references should be deleted throughout. Moreover, the redrafting of Article 2C also leaves unaddressed our concern on this article. It still refers and points towards new and clear mechanisms without saying what these would be. Here again, the challenge is not a lack of mechanisms, but the lack of effective enforcement. Additionally, Article 2c aims to prevent the occurrence of abuses. In line with the process-based approach of the UNGPs, the purpose should be to prevent and address adverse impacts. Lastly, the additional qualifier in Article 2D adds complexity. The focus here again should be on access to effective remedy through judicial and non-judicial mechanisms. Thank you.

Thank you. I recognize DKA Austria.

I speak on behalf of DKA Austria, CIDC, ECPAT International, and the Human Rights Clinics of UFMG and PUC-Parana in Brazil. On Article 2D, we welcome the Chair's proposal to retain both age-responsive and child-sensitive language, in accordance with what we said earlier on proposal number 17 on Article 1.9, and also supported by the European Union, Cuba, Uruguay, and South Africa. These terms are complementary, but they are not interchangeable. The term age responsive requires justice and remedy mechanisms to identify and respond to age-related needs throughout the life course. It therefore encompasses children, youth, adults, and older persons. It also recognizes that each of these groups is diverse and that age may intersect with other circumstances that affect a person's ability to access justice. Child sensitive, on the other hand, provides the specificity required to protect children as distinct right holders under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It requires procedures to be guided by the best interests of the child, the right to be heard, non-discrimination, the right to life, survival, and development, and respect for the child's evolving capacities. In practice, child sensitive justice require information and procedures that children can understand and use. Meaningful participation adapted to the age, maturity, and circumstances. Appropriate legal assistance and independent representation where necessary. Trained professionals. protection of privacy and confidentiality, and safeguards against intimidation, retaliation, revictimization, and further harm. It must also ensure the remedies account for the immediate, cumulative, and long-term effects on business-related human rights abuses on children's development. Age-responsive language includes children within a broader life course framework, but it does not by itself make these child-specific guarantees explicit. The distinction is therefore not about whether children are included, but also about whether the particular rights, circumstances and barriers are expressly addressed. Retaining child-sensitive language ensures that children are not treated merely as one age category among others, but as independent right holders with specific procedure and substantive entitlements. We therefore support the cumulative formulation proposed by the Chair, quote, "gender and age-responsive, child-sensitive, disability-inclusive, and victim-centered justice." I thank you.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you. I give the floor to the International Trade Union Confederation.

I speak on behalf of the Global Labour Movement. With respect to proposal 19, we welcome the suggested new language in article 2B and 2C, aimed at improving the conformity with the language and spirit of resolution 26/9. Indeed, Chair, We believe the suggested language further embeds the approach taken in the updated draft of balancing the focus on cross-border activities of business enterprises, while also applying its principal provision to other business enterprises that do not operate across border. The statement of purpose, therefore, ensure that the LBI is clearly focused towards addressing business activities of a transnational character, which is where the main normative gaps in international human rights law lie. I thank you, Chair.

Muchas gracias.

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

Chair, state delegates, I'm Juliana from the Transnational Institute, member of the Global Campaign, speaking on behalf of the Institute for Policy Studies. We welcome the opportunity to address this working group on statement of purpose, recalling that the objective of this article is precisely to tell courts and state parties what this instrument is for, so they can effectively interpret and apply every obligation enshrined in it. And in this task, we're very fortunate, Mr. Chair, because the purpose of the future instrument has already been written and agreed upon. Resolution 26/9 mandate us to, quote, "regulate in international human rights law the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises of a transnational character," end quote. Yet it is disheartening to return here year after year after year having to defend the most crucial elements mandated by Resolution 26/9, the scope and the human rights character of the future treaty. We recall states delegates that this working group exists because of the gap, or better yet, because of the wide legal void in international law that allows for transnational corporations to escape accountability by spreading their value chains across many jurisdictions and legal forms. States' obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights already exist, and they ground the many rulings against local subsidiaries who have committed human rights violations within the context of transnational business operations. The future treaty cannot be an instrument to only reaffirm state obligations. As Brazil and Palestine have highlighted, private actors' obligations also exist in international human rights law. And they have been widely recognized at least since the '60s. It is surprising to see some delegations arguing otherwise. The problem is accountability for parent and controlling companies, those reaping most of the profits, those who allow, encourage, demand, or impose the practices that result in human rights violations within their value chains, those corporations that still today, 2026, still hide behind the corporate veil to escape accountability. To reach parent company and controlling companies, those hiding behind this corporate veil, is the purpose of the future instrument, which must therefore be clearly reaffirmed in Article 2 as proposed by Egypt, Colombia, and Iran, in 2A bis, which we fully support. Now on the human rights character of the future treaty. Binding instruments must establish obligations, not responsibilities. To fulfill the purpose of this working group, we need to establish specific obligations for transnational corporations so that violations of the rights and obligations enshrined in the future treaty and in other human rights instruments can result in liability and allow for effective remedy. In 2B, therefore, responsibilities should read obligations, as proposed by Colombia and Egypt, and which was the actual wording of 2.1B in the third revised draft. Finally, we ask the delegates here present, how could we mitigate a human rights violation? To say human rights violations can be mitigated is to say to the more than 60 delegates from 24 different countries, the members of the Global Campaign present in this room today, many of them directly affected by transnational corporate power and impunity, that this working group is comfortable with a certain level of violation of their rights. What kind of violations are we willing to tolerate in the name of private profits? For the treaty to be a human rights instrument, we need to talk about duty of vigilance, duty of care, joint and several liability, not due diligence. We need to talk about violations, not abuses, not impact. And while risks may be mitigated in certain circumstances, human rights violations must be prevented, ceased and fully repaired, because a harm to human dignity can never be mitigated. We therefore ask that "mitigate" be deleted from 2, as proposed by Egypt and Brazil. Mr. Chair, State delegates, that the UNGPs say business enterprises do not have obligations, as referred in the rationale behind the Chair's proposals for Article 2, should not be an obstacle for this group to establish specific obligations for TNCs. To the contrary, this affirmation should be a reminder of the different purposes of the process of this working group is mandated to fulfill. UNGPs are voluntary guide to corporate conduct, not a human rights instrument. So instead of being bound, but what was never intended to be binding, we invite this working group to uphold the human rights character of this process. And this is why for the Global Campaign, when we hear that the text of the future treaty is moving away from the UNGPs, we know we're moving in the right direction. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I recognize ESCRNet.

I'm speaking on behalf of the National Network for Human Rights and the National Movement for People Affected by Enterprises and the Climate Crisis. We would like to express our solidarity with the young people of Europe for the protests that have taken place in the past few years. Their claims are legitimate, calling for housing and healthcare and defending fundamental human rights. We stand against the increasing privatisation of public services in Europe and outside Europe. We must ensure that we stand for the opposition of corporate interests and public interests. We need to call for accountability for international corporations as they try to undermine human rights. Ladies and gentlemen, delegates, accountability of transnational corporations will involve establishing obligations. Not mentioning this would be harmful for the process. We believe that this would be the way of dissuading seeing the pattern of human rights violations in the via the large-scale projects, the mining and those projects from extractive industries, aggravate poverty and family and community unity. These are not isolated cases, and the fact that they do not end shows that due diligence is currently not fit for purpose. If we trust in voluntary measures and the goodwill of transnational corporations, that only serves to reveal the modern face of corporate business activity, we need to see that each state party ensures that its legal framework ensures compliance with human rights obligations in this instrument, including obligations to respect internationally recognised human rights and prevent and face human rights abuses, to provide effective reparation. Not mentioning these legal obligations would be a great loss in developing the legal arguments for corporate responsibility. Thank you.

I recognize FIAN International.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Enforceable obligations for corporations must be established through this treaty. Accordingly, the term "responsibilities," as mentioned in Article 2 point B must be replaced with obligations, as the former is ambiguous, risks being interpreted in the least protective manner, and may leave compliance for corporate self-assessment rather than enforceable legal requirements. This process must go beyond reproducing existing frameworks, including the UNGPs, and contribute to closing existing accountability gaps and strengthening access to justice for affected people and communities. D, given the new definitions of rights to remedy and reparation, some editing may be required to avoid repetitions or confusion, as the concept of justice, as well as the qualifiers adequate, timely, effective, are also included in Article 1.9, defining the right to remedy. In addition, the standalone concept of reparation should also be added in this paragraph. Paragraph D could be edited as follows: "to ensure access to gender, age-responsive, child-sensitive, disability-inclusive, victim-centered remedy and reparation." As a short concluding comment, as we discuss Article 2, talking about the purpose of this LBI, Dear states delegates, a question: whom are you representing? Your people or corporate shareholders? States have a fundamental and non-derogatory obligation to represent and to protect their peoples, and peoples beyond their borders. Yet, while perpetually rolling out the red carpet for transnational corporations and big capital, states fail to fulfill that very duty. What is at stake here is actually states' credibility. And if states have to choose between their people's rights or corporate interests, also their legitimacy is at stake. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. This was the last speaker on the list. Distinguished delegates, distinguished participants. I'm now going to look at article 3 on scope, but given the time and in order to allow us to focus on the proposals on this article, which is a core part of the legally binding instrument, I would suggest that we begin that exchange tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. We therefore conclude this afternoon's meeting, and I declare closed the sixth meeting of the 12th session of the Intergovernmental Working Group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights. I thank you all for your contributions. This meeting is adjourned.