4th meeting, 12th Session of Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations

Good afternoon. Distinguished delegates, distinguished representatives, I declare open the fourth meeting of the 12th session of the Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations. and other business enterprises. Following on from this morning's meeting, we'll continue this afternoon with proposal 7, Article 16, conflict-affected areas. This seventh proposal for rewording under Article 16.3 on business activity in conflict-affected areas, strives to clarify provisions and strengthen its position and streamline it with the principles and standards of international law, international human rights law, and international humanitarian law. That paragraph sets out specific measures for conflict-affected areas, geared at identifying, preventing and mitigating the risk of abuse, with particular attention on gender-based violence and sexual violence, the use of child soldiers and the worst forms of child labour. However, we took note that the original drafting departed from the other paragraphs of article 16, as it was not drafted like an obligation of States. We should recall that this paragraph received a significant number of proposals during the 11th session, including those related to applicable terminology, such as high-risk areas, or areas affected by armed conflict. There are also references to the transnational character of activities, to strengthened due diligence that should be mandatory and continuing, and the replacement of the reference of child soldiers as well as keeping a reference to the worst forms of child labour on the basis of the universal ratification of ILO convention 182. Both in this session and in the intersessional thematic consultations, there was discussion on whether the obligations in that paragraph fall on states on business enterprises or on both, and some delegations suggested placing some of its content in article 6. In addition, it is worth remembering that the guiding principles refer to conflict-affected areas, which is an expression that is broader than that of armed conflict that we see in the Geneva Conventions. According to those principles, when a business enterprise cannot prevent or mitigate an adverse impact, it must consider halting the relationship, bearing in mind the serious nature of the abuse and the knock-on effect on other human rights. We should also bear in mind that the optional protocol of the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the participation of children in armed conflict refers both to recruitment and participation in hostilities. Finally, amongst other sources, we took into account the Fourth Geneva Convention and its Additional Protocols I and II. the ILO Convention 182, Guiding Principles 7, 12 and 19, Report A/75/212 of the Working Group on Business and Human Rights, and the UNDP guide from 2022 on reinforced due diligence in conflict-affected areas. With that background in mind, the chair-rapporteur proposes including a provision on the states parties' obligation to undertake special measures in step with the rest of article 16, that we keep the expression 'conflict-affected areas' and extend the provision to activities and business relationships. should stipulate that states must ensure that business enterprises identify, prevent and mitigate the heightened risks for human rights. Replace the reference of child soldiers, use of child soldiers, with the recruitment and use of children. And this in step with the optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We should include a new sentence according to which States Parties guarantee that business enterprises terminate their activities and business relationships in areas when abuse cannot be prevented or mitigated. With these introductory words, I offer the floor to open the floor first to states who wish to make interventions and comments on proposal 7 of the reworded article 16.3.

The State of Palestine has the floor.

Palestine, please.

Thank you, Excellency Chair. As the representative of people living under illegal occupation for the State of Palestine, Article 16 is among the most important provisions of this draft. Two weeks ago, the Office of the High Commissioner listed 214 companies involved in illegal Israeli settlements, supplying demolition equipment, surveillance, and services that sustain them. And as we stated yesterday, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 has documented how corporate and financial actors supply the weapons, technology, and finance that have transformed an economy of occupation into an economy of genocide. That is the kind of reality that this paragraph must address. Speaking on 16.3, the chair's redraft is an improvement. It says who must act, and it extends the duty to business relationships, which we strongly support, but it still requires strengthening in some key areas. The following points are priority to our delegations. First, the special measures. State parties are expected to take a peer to amount to the general human rights due diligence that Article 6 requires everywhere. without the specific requirement of enhanced due diligence in conflict-affected areas, and that the draft once contained. In conflict-affected areas and under occupation, where there are heightened risks, States must go beyond human rights due diligence and take the full range of measures, which the paragraph should spell out precisely, as non-exhaustive list. These are, A, requiring business enterprises to undertake enhanced human rights and environmental due diligence that is mandatory, continuous, and legally enforceable to identify, prevent, remediate abuses and violations, to prevent and mitigate risks, and to respect the applicable rules of international humanitarian law; prohibiting business activities and relationships, and restricting the export, import, and transfer of goods, services, technology and finance, including arms and dual-use items, that cause, contribute to, or are linked to such abuses and violations; and requiring divestment and termination, to which we return below. As an illustrative example, recently, several States have prohibited imports from settlements as required by them under international law, and per the ICJ advisory opinion in 2024, which confirmed that all states must abstain from economic or trade dealings with Israel concerning the occupied Palestinian territory that may entrench its unlawful presence, and must take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in maintaining the illegal situation. This shows that such measures are practical. Second, The paragraph must explicitly refer to international humanitarian law. States parties should be required to take all appropriate measures to prevent and minimize the risk of human rights abuses and violations and of violations of international humanitarian law in the context of business activities and business relationships in conflict-affected areas, including in situations of occupation. The paragraph must also explicitly refer to the risk of involvement in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. It should list forced displacement of populations and dispossession of lands and territories, which are prohibited under humanitarian law, alongside gender-based and sexual violence. The recruitment of children by armed forces and armed groups and their use in hostilities the worst form of child labor as defined in ILO Convention number 182, and contemporary forms of slavery. It should also require states parties to ensure the protection and meaningful participation of affected persons, especially women, children, and human rights defenders. Third, we strongly support the Chair's addition of a sentence on terminating businesses, activities, and relationships. but we also believe that the last part of the sentence should be reformulated. The human rights abuses and violations that have occurred can only be remedied. They cannot be mitigated. Only risks can be mitigated. The words "or mitigated" should therefore be deleted. The sentence should also require enterprises to divest from and terminate their business activities and relationships where human rights risks are heightened and cannot be effectively prevented, where abuses and violations have occurred or cannot be prevented, or where risks are too serious and the potential harms are irreparable. We also suggest adding a duty to note, a duty not to initiate any activities and relationships in conflict-affected areas where abuses and violations cannot be prevented or where risk of abuses or violations is identified before the activities are implemented. Finally, Chair, given the serious risk of gross human rights abuses and violations in conflict-affected areas, Article 8 on legal liability should be reviewed to ensure effective deterrence and accountability where states and corporations involved in business activities in conflict-affected areas, including situations of occupation, cause or contribute to serious violations of international law, including international criminal law and international humanitarian law. We will send that in writing too.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

The State of Palestine. The European Union, please.

Thank you for giving us the floor. We appreciate the intention of the revised Article 16.3 to clarify that states are to ensure appropriate actions by business enterprises in conflict-affected areas, and notably that they should carry out heightened human rights due diligence. Regarding the proposed requirement to terminate business activities and relationships, it might be worthwhile considering a more differentiated approach. The amended Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive provides for the suspension of business relationships as a last resort until the impact is addressed, subject to safeguards. as well as enhanced prevention or corrective action plans where there is a reasonable expectation of success. The consequences of suspension for affected persons also needs to be considered under this approach.

Thank you.

Thank you very much to the European Union. Egypt, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We look positively on the proposed text by the chair in 16.3. We have two minor suggestions. The first one is in the second line after the word "and business relationships". We suggest adding "of transnational character" to align the wording with the scope of the LBI. Exactly after that, we suggest adding the words "of transnational character, we also think it might be beneficial to look at changing the word conflict-affected areas and make it situations of armed conflict and occupation, so to just expand the-- to be specific that conflict is armed conflict, and also to add reference to situations of occupation.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you very much, Egypt. Saudi Arabia, please.

Thank you, Chair. Saudi Arabia. understands the need to place particular care on business activities in conflict-affected areas. However, the drafting that is proposed means that there is still a results obligation, and there is no clause that grants or afford special attention, because states need to ensure that business enterprises terminate relations in those areas. We do not perhaps take into account the negative impact of the withdrawal of those companies on the local community or on their rights. We need to look at the narrative that is included in the comment of the chair-rapporteur. Furthermore, the impact is not defined in the instrument. We therefore suggest that States Parties take appropriate measures instead of special measures, and this according to their domestic legislation. These Conflict-affected areas need to be defined according to objective standards as stipulated in international law, without this impinging on the sovereignty of the states concerned. This is why business enterprises need to assess and determine the risks connected to their business activities in these areas. They need to ensure that they prevent and mitigate such risks. In an event where it's impossible to prevent risks or mitigate them through reasonable measures, we suggest that states require business enterprises to envisage a responsible use of their activities rather than compelling them to terminate them. This, whilst taking into account the negative impact on human rights and on individuals and communities affected. I thank you for your attention.

Thank you very much to Saudi Arabia. Brazil, please.

Thank you, Chair, for the floor. We welcome the proposal 7 and in particular the Chair's edits. in particular, eliminated the reference to soldiers on children. And the inclusion of the mandate for enterprises to execute a responsible exit, as mentioned in the justification presented by the proposal. We understand that this disengagement process needs to be carefully evaluated to address any potential adverse impacts caused by the discontinuation of operations itself. as my colleague from Saudi Arabia was also mentioning. So we would be keen to work on some language to properly reflect that idea of responsible exit in the second part of the paragraph. Possibly responsibly terminate their business activities, although I don't think it's the best. And ensuring the protection of and meaningful participation of affected persons could also be seen as this idea of responsible exit, which is on the draft currently. We also emphasize the necessity of referencing contemporary forms of slavery after child labor. I believe that's how it's reflected on the draft and the worst forms of child labor as defined by ILO Convention 182. That's it for the moment. Thank you.

Thank you very much to Brazil.

Cuba, please.

Thank you very much, Chair. Cuba supports the proposals raised by the State of Palestine on article 16.3. CUBA hails the addition by the chair on the termination of activities and business activities under 16.3. We also support the proposal to redraft the final part. We think that abuse should be prevented and not mitigated. We also said that business enterprises should be obliged to terminate activity where the risk is too high or where the damage is irreparable. We believe that special measures should exceed the due diligence that is provided for in Article 6 in conflict-affected areas or areas under occupation. States should provide a list that will include strengthened due diligence, as well as the prohibition of activities and the prohibition of import-export activities, as well as transfer of a number of items, including weapons and dual-use items. We agree that there should be an explicit reference included to international humanitarian law and to the risks of war crime. We back the inclusion of the terms forced displacement, gender-based violence, sexual violence, child exploitation, the worst forms of child labour and contemporary forms of slavery. We also support the proposal by Egypt to align the language in the paragraph with the scope of the legally binding instrument and to refer to transnational activities. We can also support the suggestion to replace conflict-affected areas with situation of armed conflict or situation of occupation.

Muchas gracias, Cuba.

Thank you, Cuba. Uruguay.

Gracias, señor presidente.

Thank you very much, Chair-Rapporteur. We appreciate the amendments that you made aimed at strengthening prevention, mitigation of risks, and we take a positive view of replacing the reference to child soldiers with language that includes recruitment and the use of girls and boys in line with the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child related to the involvement of children in armed conflicts and also using the terminologies, terminology that used in those documents. We take note that the document also refers to finding a better place for Article 16 and the references to protection and effective participation of affected persons. It is important for the instrument to preserve these references, especially people in most vulnerable situations, especially women and children, as well as human rights defenders, in terms of guaranteeing an end to activities in order to ensure prevention and mitigation. We believe that this requires additional consideration, especially in connection with modulations and conditions related to obligation of this nature, including and the possibility to have a responsible approach to cessation of these activities in light of the situation of affected communities. Thank you.

I thank Uruguay. I give the floor to Qatar.

Thank you very much, Chair, on Article 16. The State of Qatar recognize the growing number of serious violations of human rights related to conflicts in affected areas, and we support the measures related to mitigate the consequences and reduce risks It is necessary to recall the need to protect vulnerable groups, especially women and children, while working towards protection against the forced mobilization of children in armed conflicts. In a situation where the mitigation of such risks is impossible, we must clarify the situations to define more specifically the circumstances when we would have to take measures to mitigate these risks. We also have to take into account the potential consequences and impact on human rights resulting from putting an end to such activities related to these types of business enterprises. It is also necessary to insist on responsibility and all the risks connected to potential withdrawals. And we believe that such language will strengthen the article while also looking at the unintended consequences of any of these approaches. Thank you.

Muchas gracias, Alastair.

I thank the State of Qatar. Iceland.

On article 16, Iceland supports strengthening this article as a clear obligation of States Parties. And moreover, we welcome the alignment with the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and with ILO Convention No. 182. Iceland could also be open to placing the operative core elements of this article in article 6, as has been discussed in previous sessions, but just throwing that out there. Moving forward to the final sentence of this redrafted article, Iceland would encourage alignment with the approach of guiding principle 19 and the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises. under which disengagement is considered responsibly and with due regard to its impact on affected rights holders. And the purpose to this point is that categorical termination obligations could, in some situations, worsen the circumstances of the rights holders that this provision seeks to protect to begin with. So that is our suggestion for 16.3. Thank you.

I thank Iceland. Japan, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. With regards to Article 60.3, while Japan still reserves its position on the article, we would like to appreciate that Chair Rapporteur's proposal has made it clear that it is not the business enterprises, but States Parties that shall undertake special measures. Thank you.

I thank Japan. The United Kingdom, you have the floor.

The UK recognises the particular challenges of conflict-affected areas, the need for special protection of children and others against sexual and gender-based violence, and the importance of businesses taking those issues into account. There is much that we welcome in the draft article, including the reference to the worst forms of child labour as having its origins in ILO convention 182. on the worst forms of child labour, which is universally ratified and provides clear definitions. And that's particularly helpful for businesses and stakeholders who need reliable guidance when implementing due diligence. measures. We also welcome the removal of the term "child soldier" in the draft, which is an outdated term and potentially harmful, as it risks legitimising the involvement of children in hostilities and shifts responsibility away from those recruiting children. However, like Iceland, we query whether, for example, the additional wording at the end of the paragraph on termination is too wide. and is not always the most human rights-compliant response to a problem. That is recognised in the OECD drafting that Iceland helpfully highlighted. Nor is it clear that states are best placed to take that decision on termination. Finally, we would also prefer the original language of special attention in the drafting as a means of recognizing the specific risks of conflict areas within an overarching human rights due diligence regime. Thank you.

I thank the United Kingdom. South Africa, you have the floor.

Chair, South Africa strongly supports the heightened attention to business activities and business relationships in conflict-affected areas, including gender-based and sexual violence, the use of children, and forced child labor. These would include measures to identify, prevent, and address the risks of serious human rights abuses. South Africa supports the proposals made by Egypt on the addition of business relationships of a transnational character and the inclusion of situations of occupation in this article. We also look forward to receiving Palestine's written proposals, which we believe could further enhance protections under this article. Chair, joining Saudi Arabia and Brazil, we also consider that, if appropriately worded, the text could address responsible disengagement measures to prevent further harm and the preservation of access to remedies. This would prevent disengagement from becoming a means of avoiding responsibility for harm already caused.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, South Africa. Would any other state wish to take the floor at this stage? Pakistan, you have the floor.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, Rapporteur. Just in our preliminary view, we think we appreciate the spirit in which you have presented this proposal for 16.3, including the need for addressing or mitigating the heightened human rights related risks of activities in conflict affected areas. Like Egypt, we would support reference to situations of occupation, as well as to clarify that we are referring to business activities and relationships of a transnational character. Also, towards the last line, we do support the addition in principle. However, we are flexible on how specifically it could be best worded to achieve the broadest possible support. Thank you.

Thank you, Pakistan.

I thank Pakistan. Very well. If there are no other requests for the floor from States, we will now give the floor to the representatives of civil society and other relevant stakeholders. I give the floor to Franciscans International.

Microphone, please.

Thank you, Chair. This statement is on behalf of Franciscans International and the International Service for Human Rights. We would like to propose some additional language to Article 16.3. In the first sentence, we suggest adding "and ongoing in recognition of the dynamic nature of conflicts and heightened risks present." It would read in part, "States shall undertake special and ongoing measures." We also suggest language regarding how land may be impacted by or essential to conflict and cite, for example, SESCARS General Comment 26 and the 2024 ICJ advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel's occupation. After the sentence with language on forced and hazardous child labor, we suggest adding, "Special attention should also be paid to the links between conflict, land, and human rights abuses, including land dispossession, environmental harm, and other impacts that may also obstruct the right to self-determination." We welcome language by the chair on the termination of business activities and suggest also adding language to ensure that businesses do not enter into context where clear red lines already exist. We suggest amending as state parties shall also ensure that business enterprises shall not enter into and terminate their business activities and business relationships depending on the stage in such areas when human rights abuses cannot be prevented. This proposal includes a deletion of the phrase mitigation. We also support adding a reference to respect for international humanitarian law if article 16.5 is not maintained as is. We support language proposed by the State of Palestine in regard to the protection and meaningful participation of affected persons. including women, children, human rights defenders, and protected persons generally. Last, the aforementioned suggestions are also in consideration of the developments of Article 1.8 and Article 6 in particular.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of IOE and USCIB. We recognize the critical importance of heightened human rights due diligence in conflict-affected areas and of making clear what is expected of states and of business. We are, however, particularly concerned about the new requirements for states party to ensure that business enterprises terminate their business activities and business relationships where human rights abuses cannot be prevented or mitigated. There is no standard for determining when that is the case. Such wording would create a de facto duty to disengage, where failing to exit could itself give rise to claims. It could also be read as requiring companies to terminate joint ventures or other investment relationships. Furthermore, this departs from the UNGPs, which expect disengagement to be considered, but do not mandate it. Under UNGP 19, ending a relationship must be weighted against the enterprise's leverage, the severity of the abuse, and whether exiting would itself have adverse human rights consequences. A mandatory exit would encourage cut and run rather than responsible engagement to the detriment of the communities that most need investment and jobs. In line with UNGP 7, states should instead help ensure that businesses operating in such areas receive adequate assistance. Lastly, we support referring to the worst forms of child labor as defined by ILO Convention number 192, which enjoys universal ratification. The termination requirement should be deleted and this provision aligned with the UN Guiding Principle. Thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to ESCRnet.

Mr. Chair. I speak on behalf of ESCR-Net and FIAN International. On Article 16.3, related to the implementation of the LBI in conflict-affected areas, we strongly support the inclusion in the Chair's suggested redrafting of the requirement to terminate business activities and relationships in areas where abuses and violations cannot be prevented. We also suggest adding language that ensures the duty not to initiate such activities in conflict-affected areas when human rights abuses and violations cannot be prevented, or when a risk of human rights abuses or violations is identified prior to the implementation of such activities. We also strongly support the addition of business relationships in this article. We note the continued use of the term mitigation in the last sentence of Article 16.3, which is problematic. Human rights abuses or violations, once having occurred, must only be remedied and cannot be mitigated. Only risks can be mitigated. We thus suggest deleting the terms, and I quote, "or mitigated," end of quote, from the last sentence of Article 16.3. In addition, Article 16.3, and in particular, the special measures that states must take in case of business activities in conflict-affected areas remains vague. We note that the Chair has flagged the absence of a reference to IHL in this article and suggest its inclusion, as many delegations have suggested, as it's essential to framing the measures that should be taken by states in these contexts. Special measures regarding business activities in conflict-affected areas must be precise and require careful conflict-sensitive analysis of how they interact with other provisions, in particular with Article 5, 6, 7 and 8. For instance, the requirement to conduct enhanced human rights due diligence in conflict-affected areas, included in prevention obligations under Article 6 of the third revised draft, was crucial, and such an obligation should be clearly integrated in the text. This will be in line with existing legal frameworks that include heightened human rights due diligence obligations related to conflict and high-risk settings. Finally, given the serious risk of gross human rights abuses and violations in conflict-affected areas, Article 8 on legal liability should be reviewed to ensure effective deterrence and accountability where both states and corporations involved in business activities in conflict-affected areas, including in situations of occupation, cause or contribute to serious violations of international law, including international criminal law and IHL. Thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to Association Sudwind.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair. I'm speaking on behalf of Suing Association and Electro Power Consortium against forced labor in electronic industry. as Electronic Industry Workers' Union in the northern region in Malaysia, EIEU, as a member. Electropower Partners called for Article 16, address pressure that put workers at risk and abuse and force workers in the value change. For migrant workers in Malaysia, their rights to leave a job on paper is not ensured. Workers may still owe money from recruitment fees. They are many depend on their employer for housing. They are many fail lose their right to stay in the country. Their pressure can be make it's very hard to leave the job. Since the contracts do not match, the workers feel no need to do unsafe work or leave the employer who abuses them. When states put these arrangements into practice, They must address their pressure to stop workers from making a free choice to take or leave a job. Workers must be free to join trade unions and act together to stick to better workers' conditions. They must be able to report abuse without fear of punishment or losing their job. Trade unions must have a clear rule to make their right to work particular. We must be able to help workers speak up and get support when our rights are abused. Therefore, we ask that expertise include also forced labour as defined by the ILO, indicated for forced labour outside for the mentioned Conflict affected area, article 16.3. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. I give the floor to Sitze.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm speaking on behalf of CIDCE and its member organizations, Manos Unidas, Misereor, CCFD-Terre Solidaire, Burleigh, Dellen, Trocaire, Fastenaktion, DKE Austria, and CAFOD. We welcome the strengthening of Article 16.3, particularly the recognition of heightened risks in conflict-affected areas, including gender-based and sexual violence, the recruitment and use of children, and the worst forms of child labor. We greatly welcome the requirement to terminate business activities and relationships where abuses cannot be prevented. We would also fully support an explicit reference to respect for international humanitarian law, as suggested by several states. However, we believe the reference to human rights abuses being mitigated should be changed to ended, because mitigation should not become an alternative to preventing abuses and addressing their root causes. Furthermore, we have concerns related to the scope of this protection. We would rather support a cross-cutting principle requiring states to address the heightened and differentiated risks faced by individuals and communities in vulnerable or high-risk situations throughout the implementation of the LBI, in line with the language of preamble paragraph 14. This would help ensure a consistent approach to the protection of specific groups across its different provisions, including, for example, barriers faced by persons or groups in a situation of vulnerability or marginalization in accessing the International Fund for Victims under Article 15.7, which was discussed earlier. So we therefore encourage states to retain the important safeguards proposed here while ensuring that they apply beyond conflict-affected areas and are not limited to the specific risks enumerated in this provision. Thank you, Chair.

Muchas gracias.

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

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the global labour movement. With respect to this proposal, we in the labour movement place particular importance on the obligations set out in article 16.3 concerning the conduct of business activities in conflict-affected areas and its direct impact on workers. We welcome the suggested drafting changes, which address a number of our concerns. References to heightened risk and the introduction of language and responsible exit are very significant improvements to the text. But as highlighted by others, the element of responsibility should be introduced as a qualifying factor in reference to disengagement. Similarly, we share the views of others in relation to the request to delete the reference to mitigation in that final sentence. Chair, we read the reference to heightened risk here as read against Article 6 as necessarily requiring enhanced due diligence to effectively ensure that business enterprises effectively identify, prevent, and mitigate such elevated risk. Nevertheless, we would support the State of Palestine's suggestion for an explicit reference to the State obligation to ensure business enterprises can conduct enhanced due diligence in these contexts. And Chair, in support of your redraft, we would emphasize that responsible contracting, purchasing, and disengagement practices are essential to safeguard workers and their livelihoods throughout supply chains, especially in the most challenging settings. Indeed, responsible disengagement becomes critical where even conducting enhanced due diligence is simply insufficient in context where the rule of law has collapsed. Additionally, we would continue to urge the working group to include a reference to violations of international humanitarian law, since, as noted in your paper, the article focuses on conduct that may amount to international crimes. As to the placement of the content of this provision in the relevant articles concerning due diligence, we are indifferent to that point. And finally, Chair, we would also welcome the integration of a reference of forced displacement of peoples as a clear example of a situation to which special attention should be given. I thank you.

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

I make this statement on behalf of FIAN International and International Federation of Human Rights. The suggested new text improves on the previous text in several respects. It clarifies who is responsible for taking action and specifies the action that is required, and it extends the scope of the obligation to business relationships rather than limiting it to business activities. However, the provision remains limited in scope and inadequate to effectively address the risk of serious human rights abuses in conflict-affected areas, in particular, The special measures States Parties are expected to take appear to be limited to requiring human rights due diligence. There is little that is special about this measure, as it amounts to no more than what States Parties are already required to put in place across the board under Article 6. States can take a range of other measures to prevent serious human rights abuses in conflict-affected areas, such as banning certain activities or relationships outright, or prohibiting the export or import of certain products or services, as expressed by Palestine and Cuba earlier. A broader formulation capable of capturing the full range of preventive measures that states may take in this context should therefore be adopted. As regards the specific human rights due diligence requirement, this should be framed as enhanced due diligence, as has been suggested now by many parties. Enhanced due diligence is a well-established concept in business and human rights literature and practice, and would better reflect the nature and scope of measures that are necessary to effectively identify and address the heightened risks associated with operating in conflict-affected areas. The proposed new text does not refer to international humanitarian law, despite its relevance as an international normative framework applicable to business conduct in situations of armed conflict and occupation. It is both appropriate and necessary for the effective prevention of gross human rights abuses in these contexts, such as gender-based and sexual violence and the recruitment and use of children by armed forces or armed groups, for States parties to expressly require business enterprises to respect the applicable rules of international humanitarian law. Finally, while we welcome the addition of a final sentence addressing instances in which business activities or relationships should be terminated, we recommend reformulating this phrase slightly in line with the recommendations by Palestine and Cuba and a few other delegates to make clear that termination is expected whenever abuses cannot be prevented or ended and not also mitigated. Referring to mitigation of abuses suggests that business enterprises may continue operating despite ongoing or foreseeable serious harm, provided that they can demonstrate that the severity or likelihood of the abuses has been reduced to some extent. In a context in which abuses are highly likely to occur or to be severe, any remaining abuses are still likely to be very serious. The elimination of the phrase "abuses cannot be mitigated" could be balanced out by introducing a responsible exit standard, requiring businesses to consider and address the potential adverse human rights impacts that their withdrawal may cause or contribute to. So with these considerations in mind, a possible broader formulation that still captures all forms of violence and risks facing vulnerable individuals and populations living in conflict-affected areas or situations of occupation could read as follows. States parties shall take all appropriate measures to prevent or mitigate the risk of serious human rights abuses in the context of business activities and relationships in conflict-affected areas, paying particular attention to the risk of serious human rights abuses facing vulnerable individuals and populations. Such measures shall include, but not be limited to, requiring business enterprises to undertake enhanced environmental and human rights due diligence and to respect international humanitarian law. State parties shall ensure that business enterprises are required to terminate their business activities and relationships where human rights abuses cannot be prevented or ended, or where risks are too serious and potential harms irreparable, by undertaking a responsible exit that takes into account the potential adverse impacts of termination on other human rights. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Muchas gracias.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. This will also be my first intervention of this session, so let me start off by first congratulating you on your re-election as chair of this working group. We wish to welcome proposal 7 and support efforts to strengthen the effective implementation of the LBI. However, to take into account that the core value of this instrument lies not only in the commitments states make, but in the impact and protection it provides victims of business-related human rights abuses. States have a responsibility to ensure that human rights are respected, that violations are prevented, and that victims have access to justice, effective remedies, and reparations. These protections must not remain simply words on pieces of paper, they must lead to meaningful action. We therefore recommend maintaining clear and practical obligations for states while respecting applicable international law and ensuring that no gaps in protections are created. Notably, accountability is essential. Victims must not be left without justice simply because the violations they experience are linked to corporate power or economic interests. For these reasons, we support proposal seven and encourage states to ensure that its wording remains strong, effective, and focused on protecting human rights. The success of this instrument should be measured not only by what states agree upon, but by how effectively it protects the people who need it most. I thank you.

Muchas gracias.

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

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the Institute for Policy Studies and ID for Change, members of the global campaign. We support the objective of Article 16.3, which requires states to take special measures in cases of business activities and business relationships in conflict-affected areas, including areas under occupation, to ensure that enterprises identify and prevent heightened human rights-related risks. We support Palestine's additions and propose a further addition to the provision. that state parties should also be required to pay special attention to the use of digital technologies and their integration into military and surveillance systems in conflict-affected areas. Digital technologies are increasingly embedded in the conduct of armed conflict, including through biometric identification, mass surveillance, and AI-assisted logistical and targeting systems. These technologies, developed and supplied by transnational corporations, have played a key role in facilitating violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in recent years.

The ongoing genocide in Palestine makes the urgency of this particularly clear.

In her 2025 report to the Human Rights Council, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territory has documented how technology corporations have supplied cloud computing, AI, and surveillance technologies that support Israel's military operations in Palestine. These concerns also extend beyond Palestine. Across conflict-affected areas in the world, the growing integration of commercially developed digital technologies into military and security operations is creating new avenues for human rights violations. This makes it imperative that the treaty addresses the responsibilities of the corporations developing and supplying these systems. We therefore propose that Article 16.3 expressly requires states to pay special attention to the provision and use of digital technologies in conflict-affected areas and their integration into military and surveillance systems. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

give the floor to DKA Austria.

Mr. Chair, I speak on behalf of DKA Austria, ECPAT International, and the Human Rights Clinics of UFMG and PUC-Parana. We support the Chair's proposals on Article 16.3, especially regarding the removal of soldiers after children, also supported by Brazil, Uruguay, and United Kingdom, which broadens the scope of protection to all children in conflict-affected areas. We suggest inserting at the end of the first phrase in the seventh line the following, quote, "and any practice that compromises the safety, development, or dignity of children," end quote. This addition ensures broader coverage of harmful practices that may not fall neatly within existing categories, but nevertheless pose serious risk to children's rights. I thank you.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you. This was the final speaker on the list. I'm grateful to all states and representatives of civil society for the participation in this exchange, as well as the contributions from other relevant actors. We're now going to turn to look at the last group of articles, from the group of 12 to 24. Here, we are going to look at article 16, which has been redrafted with a view to clarifying language. The text of this paragraph provides that States parties should protect public policies and decision-making processes from any undue political influence of business actors. In this regard, during the 11th session, some delegations proposed that we should consider clarifying the expression "undue influence", whilst other delegations supported maintaining it or clarifying it with reference to conflicts of interest or commercial and other vested interests. The importance of protecting the integrity of public decision-making processes was stressed, without excluding transparent and regulated participation of the private sector. During the intersessional thematic consultations, a number of delegations and many organisations once again supported the provision being maintained and called for greater clarity on how legislative frameworks could address the issue, for example, through transparency measures, good governance and dissemination of information. To this end, for the redrafting of this provision, we took into account inter alia the reports from the working group on business and human rights applicable to this issue, and we were mindful of article 5 of the WHO's framework convention on tobacco control, where the drafting on trade interests and other vested interests could serve as a reference for states in considering the scope of the expression 'undue'. On that basis, the proposed redrafting contains two elements. It stipulates, as an example, what is understood as decision-making spaces, mentioning legal systems and regulatory and governmental bodies. It also adds a second sentence according to which, in order to give effect to this provision, States Parties can adopt such measures as they may deem necessary, including those of a legislative, administrative and institutional character. That wording provides additional structure to protection measures, while preserving some room for manoeuvre for states to determine what they are. With that introduction, I open the floor to states wishing to make interventions with comments on proposal 8 and the rewording of article 16.

The

State of Palestine, please.

Thank you, Excellency Chair. We welcome your specification of judicial systems and regulatory bodies. But, quote unquote, "may adopt such measures as they may deem necessary," end of quote, makes the provision optional. The words, quote, "State parties may adopt such measures as they deem are necessary," end of quote, should be replaced with, quote, "State parties shall adopt such measures as are necessary," end of quote. Moreover, the wording under political influence is vaguer than the established standard of Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework on Convention on Tobacco Control. which the chair cites. The inclusion of the word "undue" might be misunderstood to mean that corporations could legitimately exert political influence on public decision-making processes. There is a fundamental conflict of interest there. What is needed is an objective firewall against commercial and other vested interests, and an obligation that is binding, not discretionary. We propose, therefore, to replace "under political influence" with "influence". Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much to

the State of Palestine. Costa Rica, please.

Thank you, Chair. I'm We are totally mindful of the methodology adopted, and we know that later on in the week we will have an opportunity to refer to the articles that do not contain a proposal from the chair. I am referring to one of them, which my delegation will not be able to be here on Thursday afternoon. I am mentioning that quickly, because in 16.5 we think that it is very relevant to include international environmental law, along with international human rights law and international humanitarian law, in order to fully reflect the international legal framework that is pertinent for the application and implementation of a future instrument. 6. Costa Rica welcomes the fact that the text addresses conflict of interest and vested interest. of business and political affairs. We also believe that it is necessary for the drafting to be clear, so we are grateful for the proposal from the chair. We think that we could perhaps bolster the drafting of the last sentence by changing "may" to "should" or even "shall", so that we understand that this is not just down to discretion. Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you very much, Costa Rica.

The European Union, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Concerning Article 16.6, we would appreciate clarification of what constitutes undue political influence. and how, in contrast, legitimate stakeholder participation would be preserved. If maintained, it would be worthwhile considering a more general formulation that addresses undue influence, irrespective of its source, without singling out business. We would also appreciate clarification of the added value of the proposed new second sentence, which appears to give states a discretion that they already have.

My thanks to the European Union.

Egypt, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and sincere thanks for the explanation you made and the way you approached this article. We welcome the expansion on describing what exactly is the decision-making spaces, and also we generally welcome the addition of the last sentence. On the reference to the undue political influence, allow me to expand, if I may. It's important for us to distinguish clearly between the respective roles and mandates of transnational corporations and governments. Corporations and businesses are primarily established to generate economic value, maximize financial returns, and enhance shareholder interests. Their success is generally measured through financial indicators such as profitability, return on investment, and market performance. Governments, by contrast, carry a fundamentally different responsibility. Their mandate is not profit generation, but the provision of public services, goods and protection of rights, and maintenance of security and social order and cohesion. Unlike businesses, government must balance a wide range of competing social, economic and political priorities, ensuring that the needs of all members of the societies are considered, particularly the most vulnerable. saying that the governments and transnational corporations operate according to a distinct objective, objectives, accountability frameworks, and measures of success. Recognizing this distinction, give the wording of undue political influence, for us it creates a lot of vagueness and uncertainty, and it might have a misleading interpretation that interfering there's an undue influence and there's a due political influence. And we suggest changing this reference and replacing it with the phrase that says, "from commercial, financial, and other vested interests." So to make the clear distinction between the mandate and the priorities of transnational corporations and governments clear, we we should consider the removal of the changing of the undue political influence to commercial, financial and other vested interest.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Egypt. Iceland, please.

Thank you, Chair. Iceland attaches importance to protecting public decision-making from undue influence, and it is an essential condition for the effective implementation of this instrument. We also recognise that business enterprises have a legitimate role to play in policy making, provided that their participation is transparent and responsible. In our view, transparency is what gives real content to the notion of undue influence. In light of that, we suggest adding a reference to this article, perhaps towards the end of the paragraph, where the provision is given operational content by explicitly mentioning transparency and disclosure measures as a part of the process to give effect to this provision.

Thank you.

Thank you to Iceland. Uruguay, please.

Thank you, chair-rapporteur. We believe that it is important to conserve the integrity and transparency of public decision-making spaces, including judicial systems and regulatory and governmental bodies. We can thus support the chair-rapporteur's proposal, because we understand that it helps to give clarity to the scope of protection. At the same time, we believe that it is worthwhile examining the meaning of "undue". We need to make a distinction between the legitimate participation of businesses and other actors in forming public policy and to understand how their influence could determine outcomes. We remain open to discuss this formulation and alternatives that could help to give more clarity to the provision.

Thank you very much.

To Uruguay. Saudi Arabia, please.

Chair, thank you. For article 16.6, we reiterate that implementing the provisions of this instrument should take place according to national judicial systems, bearing in mind the specific nature of regulations in those countries. We are pleased with the current drafting, because it is the states parties that will decide what the necessary measures are. Nevertheless, we would like to point out that the concept of undue influence has not been defined. The narrative supporting this proposal refers to this, and states have asked for this concept to be clarified. If this remains vague, it will give way to diverging interpretation, and this might undermine the participation of business enterprises in public policy and decision making. This is why we would like to add the following sentence in keeping with the legal system. That would be added to the obligation in the article. I'd like to add a sentence that says, 'without prejudice to the legitimate participation of business enterprises in consultations that will take place in accordance with national law'. That would be in keeping with the work of the working group on human rights and business enterprises in its report 67/201. The document that contains your proposals has referred to this particular report. The working group says that the private sector and other stakeholders have the right to be involved in shaping public policies And this participation should be transparent and responsible. I thank you.

Thank you very much to Saudi Arabia. Pakistan, please.

Mr. Chair, Rapporteur, and also our thanks for the comprehensive presentation. It helps us understand how you've approached this. We see Article 16.6 as seeking to address a genuine problem. If states are to regulate transnational corporate conduct effectively, the regulatory processes must be protected from capture by the entities that they seek to regulate. Nevertheless, we do see three concerns with the current formulation. Firstly, the term businesses should be limited to transnational corporations and other enterprises of a transnational character, consistent with the position my delegation has taken in other articles. Second, the standard undue political influence is not a term of art, as the conference room paper itself acknowledges. We noted the reference to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which offers a model that emphasizes transparency, disclosure of interests, and conflict of interest management. And we see value potentially in drawing on that precedent. Third, the reference to judicial systems goes beyond the legally binding instruments mandate. Judicial independence remains essential, but its protection is addressed through other instruments and processes. The provision in section 16.6 should focus on the executive and regulatory functions that are directly implicated by corporate lobbying. Although we do not have a textual suggestion here, we think that, if the three elements could be addressed, we may be able to come up with language that Pakistan could look at favorably. Thank.

You.

My thanks to Pakistan. The State of Qatar, please.

Thank you, Chair. We align ourselves with the views of Saudi Arabia, and wish to emphasize the importance of ensuring that the implementation of the instrument remains consistent with domestic legal frameworks and institutional arrangements of states. We further consider that the concept of undue political influence would benefit from greater clarity to avoid divergent interpretations. In that regard, it is important to ensure that legitimate engagement by business enterprises in policy making and consultation processes is not inadvertently restricted, while maintaining the integrity and objectives of the instrument. Finally, it is difficult to envisage the circumstances in which a claim could be brought on the basis of the clause, which raises questions as to its practical application and enforceability. Thank you.

Thank you. To Qatar, the United Kingdom, please.

We reserve our position on this article pending further instructions. As a preliminary observation, as the EU, Uruguay, Saudi Arabia and others have said, it would be helpful to understand the definition of undue influence, given the legitimate role of business alongside other stakeholders in decision making. Perhaps the suggestion on transparency from Iceland could assist here, and some variation of Saudi Arabia's reference to without prejudice language might also assist to leave room for legitimate engagement. Like the EU, we also query why businesses are singled out in the drafting and we would be unlikely to accept language that singles out TNCs specifically. We also, like the EU, query what the final line adds to existing state powers. Thank you.

My thanks to the United Kingdom. No other state seems to wish to take the floor at the moment. We'll therefore move to representatives of civil society and other relevant actors. I recognize the International Organization of Employers.

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of IOE and USCIB. We are not supportive of this proposal. Article 16.6 already sought to protect vague decision-making spaces from an equally vague and geopolitical influence by businesses. The redrafting does not resolve this. It extends the provision to judicial systems and regulatory and governmental bodies and invites States to adopt legislative, administrative and institutional measures while still leaving its key term undefined. As the Chair's own background acknowledges, the question of what is understood by "undue" remains open. We remain particularly concerned that this provision singles out business, departing from the UNGPs and disregarding the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights recognitions, quoted in the background, that the private sector, alongside other stakeholders, has a right to participate in policy-making. We fully share the working group's emphasis on transparent and responsible participation, a principle that must apply equally to all stakeholders. Targeting businesses, regardless of their size, is stigmatizing and undermines the inclusive, multi-stakeholder approach of the Guiding Principles. Involving companies, employers and business membership organizations helps ensure that policies are effective, proportionate and evidence-based, and excluding them would restrict freedom of expression and association as preserved in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and ILO Convention No. 87. This provision also departs from the tried and tested tripartite model of the ILO, where employers, workers, and governments shape policy together. We continue to call for the deletion of this provision. Thank you.

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

We wish to retract our statement.

Thank you.

Thank you. I give floor to Association Sudwind.

Thank you. I'm speaking on behalf of Association Sudwind and the Treaty Alliance Austria. We have a specific comment on proposal 8. Regarding the protection of public policies and decision-making spaces, the final EU CCSD+ cannot be a blueprint for the UN treaty. Massive lobbying by multinational oil companies was documented by the Dutch NGO SOMO. We need to ensure that such lobbying never happens again. At EU level, these companies lobbied under the name of the so-called Competitiveness Roundtable to conceal that these demands came from large TNCs. The result is a CDD that contains massive loopholes. Furthermore, several statements from the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights, as well as from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, warned of the negative consequences of the omnibus package for the effectiveness of the EU CDD. We need a strong UN mining treaty that protects human rights and the environment along the entire value chain, and that ensures effective access to justice for affected people. Against this background, we need to ensure that the UN Treaty includes the strongest possible provision to protect the process. We support taking up the Chair's proposal to consider the language of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Article 16.6 should therefore read as follows: "State Parties shall protect the public policies and decision-making spaces from interference and influence from commercial and other vested interests." Thank you.

Thank you.

I give the floor to the International Transport Workers Federation.

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the Global Labor Movement. In relation to this proposal, we can support the drafting changes intended to clarify the language in the provision, which is effectively to protect public policy and decision-making spaces from corporate capture. This provision does not speak to, say, tripartite social dialogue on policy or legitimate consultation with the social partners, which are all aspects that we engage in as trade unions at all levels. Chair, as stated previously, for the trade union movement, it is essential to ensure that corporations are not allowed to weaponize private profit to unduly influence public policy. these may be the same corporations that benefit financially by continuing to abuse trade union and human rights, for example. Such influence essentially undermines democracy. Chair, we are open to the suggestion of clarifying the term "undue" and to also consider language in Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, save perhaps for the reference in that provision to national law, which we do not think is appropriate in the context of the LBI. I thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to CIDSE.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm speaking on behalf of CIDSE and its member organizations, Manos Unidas, Misereor, CCFD-Terre Solidaire, Broederlijk Delen, Trucker, Fastenaktion, and CAFOD. We greatly appreciate the Chair Rapporteur's proposal under Article 16.6 to protect public policies and decision-making spaces, including judicial, regulatory and governmental bodies, from undue political influence by businesses. We consider this an important safeguard for the integrity and independence of public decision-making. We nevertheless encourage further strengthening of the provision by explicitly referring to interference and influence by commercial and other vested interests, as proposed by Palestine and the League of Experts' non-paper presented during the 11th session, and by adding an explicit reference to conflicts of interest, in line with Colombia's suggestion. It is an established fact that many TNCs are richer and more powerful than the majority of states. We have seen in the countries where our partners work that commercial interests regularly interfere with public decision-making processes to enhance their own profits, even when they come at a cost of negative human rights and environmental impacts. In this context, language such as that proposed represents a minimum standard. These additions would provide a clearer and more comprehensive safeguard against situations in which commercial or other vested interests may improperly interfere with public institutions or influence decisions that should be taken in the public interest. I thank you.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you. I give the floor to ESCR.net.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. We strongly oppose reference to legitimate engagement of business as it is not relevant to the purpose of this article. We remind state delegates that corporations have no rights under international law and absolutely have no right to influence how this instrument will be implemented as there is a clear conflict of interest in this regard. Article 16.6 is an important provision to prevent corporate capture. However, its wording is limited by the specific reference to undue political influence by businesses, which could be narrowly interpreted. We therefore suggest deleting the terms "undue political" and keeping the reference to influence in general, so that it would include political, but also other forms of influence. We also support changing the word may to shall to clarify that stopping corporate influence is an obligation, as mentioned by the delegate from Costa Rica. Another proposal would be to use existing agreed language based on Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Controls in force since 2005 and which was suggested by the State of Palestine and representatives of the labor movement. Such a proposal could read as follows. 16.6, in implementing this legally binding instrument, state parties shall protect public policies and decision-making spaces from the interference and influence of commercial and other vested interests. This approach would serve to promote consistency across international legal instruments, as well as reinforce the obligation of states to legislate in alignment with obligations under international human rights law. We have seen the consequences of allowing corporations to influence public decision-making time and again. In the climate crisis, fossil fuel companies shape and block very decisions meant to regulate their activities and address the environmental harm they cause. This is a fundamental conflict of interest. Those causing, fueling, or profiting from environmental destruction and human rights violations cannot be allowed to write the rules meant to stop them. Finally, as suggested by Costa Rica, we would like to support the inclusion of international environmental law in 16.5. Thank you very much.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Erica Mendes. I am from Justice Ambiental in Mozambique. And we are part of the global campaign and also of the international movement of people affected by dams and the climate crisis. This international movement was launched last year in Belem, Brazil. Across the globe, affected communities are bearing the brunt of the multiple crises we are facing. And all of these crises are directly related to the overwhelming and unchecked power of powerful corporations, whose only interests are profits for their shareholders. we need to speak about the elephant in the room. Corporate capture occurs when corporations are granted influence over decision-making processes, allowing them to shape public policies and legal frameworks in ways that serve their own interests, prioritizing profits over people's lives. It not only undermines democratic governance, but also perpetuates impunity for human rights violations and obstructs the development of legal frameworks genuinely grounded in the public interest, human rights, and social justice. Corporate capture allows corporations to shape, dilute, or even block the adoption of rules intended to regulate them. It is like allowing students to decide how their own exams should be graded. Those who are supposed to be held accountable are given the power to determine the standards by which they are judged. We have seen a striking example of corporate capture at the EU level that is currently conducting waves of deregulation, where corporate lobbying under the guise of simplification has led to the significant weakening of the CS due diligence directive. Human rights safeguards have been diluted in the name of reducing the regulatory burden on powerful corporations with enormous resources. In my continent, across Africa, corporations actively prevent states from passing progressive environmental, climate, or labor legislation, which is often disguised as efforts to improve our ease of doing business index to please neocolonial actors such as the World Bank. Corporate capture also permeates, to put it diplomatically, the WTO and the UN. We also heard the nonsensical statement that there is no need for an LBI, since there are no legal gaps in labour rights and human rights enforcement at the national level, and that the judicial systems are working. For these reasons, we strongly advocate for the inclusion of strong provisions throughout the treaty to prevent and address corporate capture, particularly in Article 16.6. This includes deleting language about undue political influence in 16.6 and broadening it to encompass corporate influence generally. The words "undue political" should be deleted. It allows corporate actors to present aggressive lobbying as a legitimate form of participation, despite the fundamental conflict of interest that precludes corporate political influence. Clear and objective safeguards against business and other vested interests are needed, along with the binding obligations. Therefore, we propose the following wording. 60.6, in implementing this LBI, state parties shall protect public policies and decision-making spaces, such as their judicial systems and regulatory and governmental bodies from influence by businesses. To give effect to this provision, state parties shall adopt such measures as are necessary, including those of a legislative, administrative, and institutional character. States, in particular global south states, need to use this opportunity presented by these negotiations to address this direct and systematic threat to their sovereignty and to their ability to govern in the public interest. I am afraid that what the EU calls legitimate stakeholders might be those known in our countries as neocolonial corporate criminals. Thank you.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you. I give the floor to GKA. Austria.

Thank you, Mr. 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 proposal on Article 16.6 regarding the adoption of the necessary measures to clarify the wording and enhance legal certainty to improve implementation of the legally binding instrument. We also suggest adding a paragraph as follows: Article 16.7, "States parties shall integrate environmental and climate considerations into all measures implementing this instrument, recognizing the interdependence between a healthy environment and the enjoyment of human rights." This addition would reinforce the preventive and protective dimensions of the instrument, particularly regarding children and environmental harm in the context of business activities. It is also grounded in the recognition that a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is a human right in itself and essential to the full enjoyment of children's rights, including the rights to life, health, education, and development. I thank you.

Thank you very much. I give the floor to.

The qualified endurance and do seems to be clear, refers to any influence by state and non-state actors, which aims at lowering or stagnating a given standard on international domestic norms. It has direct negative impacts on the enjoyment of rights, on the environment and climate. This is particularly relevant on the economic and political power of TNCs, frequently greater than host countries themselves. and its power to influence public policies, enhancing the profits at the cost of rights. Corporate capture is a well-known phenomenon. But also this paragraph should be enhanced with precise language and safeguards. Moreover, the most adequate verb in this paragraph should be "shall". since this paragraph does not deal with a policy option, but a positive obligation of states on the international human rights law, while sedimented in treaties.

Case laws, and sources.

Thank you.

Thank you. That was the last speaker on my list. Now we have concluded the consideration of proposals related to amendments 1 through 8 on articles 12 to 24. And I'd like to thank states, representatives of NGOs and other relevant stakeholders for their contributions. I take note of that. So I believe that we've achieved our objective to have an interactive exchange of views on the results of previous discussions and the identification of possible areas of convergence.

Continuing under item 4.

Continuing on agenda item 4 of the agenda that we approved, so we will now turn to the segment entitled presentation of the summary of the thematic consultations that took place during the intercessional period on articles 1 through 3 and the proposals of the chairperson rapporteur as a result of those consultations, and we will follow that. with interactive dialogue, just like during the segment dedicated to articles 12 to 24. This segment has two objectives. First, to present in a formal way to this working group a brief summary of the key aspects that were dealt with during the second and third thematic consultations during the intercessional period. as reflected in the summary report of the consultations. And secondly, present and contextualize the 14 proposals of the chair rapporteur related to Articles 1 through 3 contained in the annex to the report. And we will have these proposals projected on the screen and will be the basis for our informal, dynamic, interactive dialogue. The second thematic consultation that took place on 9 April was dedicated to article 2 on the statement of purpose and 3 on the scope. The third thematic consultation that took place on the 28th and 29th May dealt with Article 1 on definitions, the preambular part and the general discussion and vision of the text on the road ahead. Just like during the first round of consultations. Each discussion started with the presentation of a non-paper prepared by the chair rapporteur with the support of legal experts, except in the case of the preambular part, and the discussion of that part was based directly on the text proposals presented by states during the previous sessions. I'd like to briefly refer to the key aspects of these two large number of delegations and organizations stressed the importance of ensuring that declaration of purpose provides a clear, balanced, and effective foundation for the instrument. The exchange of views focus, among other things, on the distinction between obligations of states and responsibilities of companies or enterprises. and the expression to ensure the respect and realization and the references to the mitigation of abuses and the applicable qualifications related to access to the judiciary. On Article 3, different views were expressed on the scope of the application of this instrument. It's limited the instrument to transnational corporations or to activities of a transnational nature. to deal in a simple way with all business activities or having a particular emphasis on activities of a transnational nature. Also, focus was given to the differentiation between compliance with the obligations related to prevention, especially in connection with the activities of SMEs. And also what was discussed is the scope of the material application of the treaty, including the question what human rights are covered and its connection to the conventional obligations of each state. On Article 1, many delegations and organizations stated that to have definitions will be crucial to guarantee the interpretation, application, and effectiveness of any future instruments. And they urged all of us to focus on clear, operational, and legally clear applicable definitions. that can be applied in different legal systems. Amongst other aspects, the relationship between the notions of victims, the negative impact on human rights abuse and reparation was discussed, as well as the distinction between abuses and violations of human rights. Also, what was discussed is the scope of business activities, their transnational nature, and business relationships and the relationship between the definition of due diligence in the area of human rights in Article 6 on prevention, as well as the definitions of regional integration organizations and relevant state agencies. In connection with the preambular part, as you're aware, presents general interpretative context for substantive provisions, what was highlighted was the need to have a clear and consistent connection to the substantive provisions and comments were made on the normative framework that underpins the instrument, the responsibility of enterprises to respect human rights and the connection with the obligations of states as well as persons and groups in situations of vulnerability. And finally, at the end of the third round of consultations, there was an exchange of views on the general approach related to the text and the path to follow. And a large number of delegations, organizations stressed the importance to move in the direction of a clear, consistent, legally clear and applicable instrument that will effectively protect victims and reflect great level of consistency between different provisions of the text. So we'll come back to these different aspects and the vision related to the text in general and the path ahead of us, something that we will be doing Thursday afternoon. Distinguished delegates, on the basis of these thematic consultations, the chair rapporteur presented 14 proposals for reformulation of the text. that we will be reviewing later that refer to the 10 definitions in Article 1 as well as proposals related to Article 2 and the three paragraphs of Article 3. These proposals, just like the eight proposals related to Articles 12 through 24, were prepared under my own responsibility with the help of our legal experts and enjoy the same nature just like the previous ones. In other words, they do not have any legal value and they do not replace the updated draft of the legally binding instrument with the textual proposals that were presented by States during the 9th, 10th and 11th sessions. Nevertheless, I would like to say that some of these proposals are closely interlinked. The definitions of a victim, the adverse impact and human rights abuses follow a logical continuity. Business activities and business relations have been presented and reformulated together in order to avoid overlaps and some proposals also propose a change in the placement of these articles in the text, for example, due diligence or the differentiation between the obligations of prevention in Article 6 and regional integration organizations in Article 19. Also, proposals related to Articles 3.1 and 3.3 provide two options of drafting with The objective of finding possible convergence on questions, as you all know, have given rise to diverging positions. Also, I'd like to recall that the preambular part was already subject to direct intergovernmental negotiations during the ninth session that took place in October 2023. And because of its nature, we are referring to a part of a future instrument that may be finalized once we have moved forward in the drafting of operative provisions of the text in order to ensure complete consistency throughout the text. So for this reason, the document with proposals does not have any suggestions related to amendments to the preambular part and in line with the approved program of work. We will not be looking at the preambular part in any specific way during this session. Nevertheless, as was said earlier, this does not prevent delegations that would like to wish to do that can use the first part of our session Thursday afternoon to share their proposals or observations on the preamble or part or any other article of the text as long as these proposals were not presented during the regular sessions that took place before or during the intercessional thematic consultations. As a result, just as it happened Monday with articles 12 through 24. The main focus of our work during this segment will focus on interactive dialogue on the proposals for the reformulation of parts of the text of articles 1 through 3. And we will be following the same methodology that we employed for articles 12 to 24. So first, I will be giving the floor to states. and after that the floor will be open to other relevant stakeholders that wish to make comments of a general nature on the thematic consultations, the summary report and the different proposals. After that, I'll be presenting one after the other, the 14 proposals of alternative text and they'll be presented on the screen. And I'll be giving, once again, first the floor to States, and after that to relevant stakeholders, in order to ensure that we have a dynamic and interactive informal dialogue. And just like Monday, we will not have any official list of speakers, so I invite delegations to request the floor and raise their nameplates. also like to recall that in line of the practice of this working group, any delegation can, through the chair rapporteur, make specific questions addressing our legal experts. Their participation has been objective, neutral, and impartial, with full respect to the intergovernmental nature of this process of negotiations. Having said that, I would like to now open the floor for States that would like to make comments of a general nature on the second and third round of inter-Sessional Thematic Consultations, the summary report and the proposals related to amendments to the text of articles 1 through 3.

Would any State like to make any general comments?

The.

Russian Federation.

Mr. Chair Rapporteur, since it is our first statement during this session, I'd like to congratulate you once again on your reappointment to the position of Chair Rapporteur of this working group and reaffirm our commitment to constructive dialogue. Chairs, rapporteur, we would like to reaffirm that the comments and observations that were made by my delegation to the text on TNCs and business activities and human rights that were made during the previous sessions of this group are still valid. For example, the proposals made by the chair rapporteur on paragraphs 1 through 3 of the draft, I'd like to make the following comments. Any definition should be clear and clearly checked out from a legal point of view. Trying to catch trend-based terms and characteristics that will lead to reduction of any participants, the number of participants in the instrument, because they will not be in line with the obligations of states and international law. Now, international humanitarian law should be fully respected as we prepare this legally binding instrument. In this context, we'd like to recall our position of principle on ensuring that the document only covers transnational companies and other enterprises of a transnational nature. In this respect, we draw attention the importance of bringing this text in line with existing terminologies. We are in favor of the second options in the proposals made by the Chair on Articles 3.1, 3.3. We have stressed on numerous occasions that the category of domiciles for physical persons is something that rather relates to countries of Anglo-Saxon law. So we would suggest that we would use a more universal category, for example, permanent residents. Now, the definition of the terms entrepreneurial activities or entrepreneurial relations include references to the activities of physical persons. We're not convinced that this is the right approach and that it is in line with the mandate of this working group. On one hand, the activities of TNCs and the activities of physical persons cannot be compared, and to establish any forms of equality between these activities will be quite counterproductive and incorrect, because the ability to have an impact on the activities of companies or physical persons is something that is very much different. So we would like to remove physical persons from the text. Now, the term that is used in the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the use of an abstract term, human rights, does not contribute to clarity of the text, because we're not really clear about what type of human rights we're talking about. We're also concerned about the inclusion of the text of rights recognized by national law. We have very different systems. So this means that the scope of the document will already include the risk in terms of potential implementation related to all the states that may like to join the document. There are many reasons to believe that One state can accuse another state of violating rights that are not recognized by the legislation of that second country. We're also against any language that is not clear or not fully focused. We cannot agree with the use in the articles 1.9 and 2D such characters. that taking into account gender or age best factors, taking into account the specific features of children or placing victims at the heart of this work. believe that lack of any clear understanding of these legal categories may lead to different interpretations under this document and will make it problematic for many states to join the document, including our own country. Thank you.

My thanks to the Russian Federation. Is there any other state wishing to make some general comments? That does not appear to be the case. Civil society, organizations and other relevant actors. For general comments, I recognize the IOE.

Thank you, Chair. I speak jointly on behalf of IOE and USIB. We thank the Chair, rapporteur, the legal experts, and the Secretariat for the summary report on the second and third thematic consultations. The report shows that after more than a decade, there is still no common understanding on the very foundations of this instrument, its definitions, its purpose, and its scope. This should prompt reflection, no further expansion. Chair, allow me to recall what the global business community considers essential for the way forward, much of which is reflected in the report. On Article 1, definitions must be clear, operational, and legally certain so that they can be applied across different legal systems, as many delegations called for. Terms such as any relationship or other activity do not meet this test. Business relationships should be limited to those directly linked to a company's operations, products or services, and due diligence should follow the UNGPs. On Article 2, the distinction between state obligations and business responsibilities must be preserved, a point broadly supported during the consultations. It is the cornerstone of the Guiding Principles. On Article 3, the instrument should apply to all business activities on an equal footing, domestic and transnational, including state-owned enterprises, without imposing disproportionate burdens on SMEs. Its material scope should be limited to internationally recognized human rights binding on states, in line with the consensual nature of international law, rather than rights lacking an agreed treaty definition. We urge you to ensure that the next draft builds on this common ground rather than moving further away from it.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. There are no further requests for the floor. So before we start to look at the rewording proposals for articles 1 to 3, let's have a five-minute break. I suspend the meeting. Distinguished delegates, distinguished participants, we're going to resume our meeting.

We are.

Now going to move to consideration of the individual proposals for redrafting of the Chair-Rapporteur on Articles 1 to 3, according to the methodology that I hitherto described. We will first look at proposal 9. pertaining to the definition of "victim" under Article 1. The purpose is to incorporate textual proposals that align this definition with the basic principles and guidelines on the rights of victims of human rights abuses and serious violations of international humanitarian law and allow them to make a claim and obtain reparation. This was adopted in resolution 60/477 of 2025. We looked at, amongst other things, the reference to affected communities, those who have tried to assist victims, mention of acts or omissions, as well as the inclusion of the immediate family. A number of delegations and organizations wanted to refer explicitly to the affected communities because they felt that the damage was not sufficiently reflected in the expression "group of persons", and others underscored the individual nature of the harm caused. Regarding the individuals who might support victims, we noted the need for an appropriately close connection with business activities. Therefore, any acts or omissions are already included in the definition of human rights abuse of article 1.3. With this in mind, the chair rapporteur suggests maintaining aspects of the definition with the following two adjustments. First, to include affected communities alongside any person or group of persons who suffered human rights abuse in the context of business activities. Secondly, to include, in step with the basic principles and guidelines for those who have suffered harm, to provide assistance to victims in distress or to prevent human rights abuse in the context of business activities." With these introductory remarks, I now turn to the floor and offer the floor to any States wishing to make comments on the new proposal 9 and the rewording of article 1.1.

The Gulf Cooperation Council, please.

Thank you, Chair. First, the GCC renews its support for our previous comments. We express our concern that that has not been taken into account as it should have been. That raises concerns, because it invokes legal responsibility. Looking at the definition of victim in article 1, we reaffirm the need to clarify the fact that that refers to moral persons or legal persons. And we'd like to add, having suffered from the activities of, having suffered from business activities, we need to reaffirm the causal link, the cause and effect. We need to draw this out and make sure it's clear. And this is in connection with paragraph 3.1, 3.2, sorry. So we propose a clearer definition to guarantee protection for victims without discrimination and thus reduce the risk of diverse interpretation.

Thank you.

My thanks to the GCC. The European Union, please.

Thank you, Mr Chair. With respect to the definition of "victim" in article 1.1, we would welcome clarification of the meaning of "immediate family members" and "dependants", the circumstances in which they would qualify as victims and the nature of the harm required. We also wish to clarify whether the formulation may also include leaves states discretion, or is coverage required when specified conditions are met? Thank you.

My thanks

to the European Union.

Saudi Arabia, please.

The delegation of Saudi Arabia aligns itself with the GCC's comments. First, we hail the efforts undertaken by the chair-rapporteur. Nevertheless, we note that the definition before us of the word "victim" is expanding because we have now added affected communities, as well as those who have suffered a human rights abuse, and we have not restricted the definition to cover a direct harm. This merely increases confusion as to the legal definition In particular, if we read this in conjunction with 9.1d, which authorises a mandate on the basis of the place of residence of the victim or the place of harm, this is why Saudi Arabia, on the basis of our previous remarks, would like to propose a definition which deems that a victim is any individual who has suffered a direct harm through violation of human rights in the state where the business activities are occurring, without any discrimination on the basis of nationality, place of residence, and whether the harm is determined according to the law in force or the court or the tribunal that needs to issue a decision. When we are looking at immediate family or dependants, that is when we can identify a harm according to the national legislation in force. We must also stress that recognising the status of victim does not determine the allocation of responsibility or liability according to the law in force. Thank you.

Thank you very much. To Saudi Arabia. Cuba, please.

Thank you very much, Chair. Cuba supports the definition of victim contained in article 1 and appreciates its broad, inclusive scope. The definition recognises as a victim not only individuals but also groups of persons or affected communities. That drafting reflects the reality of many human rights abuses committed by transnational corporations, because often there is a collective impact of their action. We also accept that a victim can be independent of the nationality or residence of the person, and that stipulation ensures that no victim can fall outside the scope of protection because of their origin or place of residence. We also value the inclusion of immediate family members or dependants of the direct victim, as well as people who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims or to prevent human rights abuse. That language is in keeping with international standards. Finally, Cuba supports that victim be recognized independently of whether the author of the abuse has been tried or convicted. This is crucial in order to ensure access to justice and to effective remedy, in particular when there are obstacles in the way of identifying or trying corporations that are involved. We would stress that our only suggestion here is that after business activities we should add of transnational corporations or transnational character so that this language is in keeping with article 3.

I thank you.

I thank Cuba. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you so much, Chair. We also warmly welcome the Proposal 9 and the explicit inclusion of affected communities. I think it's a fundamental achievement to acknowledge the collective dimension of social environmental harm suffered by Indigenous Peoples, traditional communities and other populations, which is a reality that is not fully captured by the individual phrase "group of persons." And also to ensure technical consistency with Article 9, we could go along with irrespective of the nationality, habitual residence or domicile of the victim, but we are flexible also to accommodate whichever formulation seems more coherent with the rest of the document.

Thank you.

Thank you to Brazil. Japan, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Apologies for going back, but just in case our previous comment may be misinterpreted, we would like to clarify the comments we made on Article 16.3. In our comment on Article 16.3 that we made earlier this afternoon, we just wanted to show our appreciation that the Terraporter's proposal 7 explicitly spelled out that the obligation under the first sentence of this article would fall to states parties, not to business enterprises. That said, please do note that we still reserve the position on this article as a whole. Now let us move on to our comment on Article 1.1. And first, we would like to start out with the general comment on Article 1 as a whole. Article 1 defines what kinds of acts in what business activities constitute human rights abuse. This means that Article 1 is inextricably linked to all other provisions in this draft LBI, and thus underpins the instrument in its entirety. As many countries, including Japan, have pointed out in the previous intersessional thematic consultations, some definitions in the current text are possibly overly broad and vague, which we believe poses fundamental problems from the perspectives of legal certainty and predictability for businesses. We saw significant divergences of views among countries on many issues during the intercessional consultations this year, and unless Article 1 is revised to realistic and well-balanced wording that many countries can accept, we believe that this draft LBI cannot be successfully adopted. With this in mind, and reiterating that our comments on this are non-exhaustive, we would like to set out our position on Article 1. So, on Article 1.1. We consider that the definition of victim in the current text is too broad. It does not sufficiently limit the relevancy or causal relationship between business activities and harm through clear criteria such as direct harm, and it includes any person or group of persons who claim to have suffered a human rights abuse in the context of business activities, irrespective of their nationality or domicile. In addition, the term "victim" may also extend to the immediate family members and dependents, which could risk disorderly expansion of the scope of claims by those who insist that they are the victims. The teleporter's proposal 9 suggests that victims should include affected communities and persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims. But we are concerned that this also poses a risk of disorderly expansion of the scope of the term victim without establishing any criteria or limitations regarding causal relationship between acts and results. Based on this thinking, to limit the scope of the term victims to direct victims only, we propose deleting both the phrase or group of persons and the second sentence in Article 1.1, which reads, Quote, "The term victim may also include the immediate family members or dependents of the direct victim," unquote. Also, we oppose the suggested addition of the phrase "or affected communities" in the Chair reporter's proposal 9. Since we consider that the notion of a collection of individual persons can still be included in the phrase "any person" in the current text, our suggestion enables the LBI to ensure the original intent of the suggested definition of "victim" as well as conceptual precision and practical applicability, while limiting the definition of victims to direct victims. It would also help to ensure predictability for business and effectiveness of the LVI.

Thank you.

I thank Japan. Uruguay, you have the floor.

Thank you. In connection with this proposal, we give special importance to the definition of victims because it has a direct impact on the actual determination of persons that may benefit from protection and prevention and remedies. The definition, therefore, should be very clear and cover in a clear manner the different forms of abuses related to entrepreneurial activities. The guiding principles in the relevant resolution of the General Assembly includes some of the elements, especially the reference to the persons that have already suffered from abuses. Nevertheless, we believe that we can add some language, including a reference to mental and physical harm, and also refer to children, and the inclusion of families will be also in line with national legislation. We believe that this will enhance the protective nature of definition and ensure greater consistency with existing legislation in terms of victims and potential reparations. Thank you.

Thank you to Uruguay. I give the floor to the State of Palestine.

Thank you, Chair. We welcome your proposal. We appreciate the inclusion of affected communities and persons harmed while assisting victims, consistent with the basic principles. We, however, remain concerned by the term "may", as we believe that family members and dependents shall be included. In line with the Enforced Disappearance Convention, which treats any person harmed as a direct result as a victim. A may leaves their status to each state's discretion. In addition, here and throughout the treaty text, we reiterate our position that the definition must refer to abuses and violations, not just abuses. Thank you.

I thank the State of Palestine. The United Kingdom, you have the floor.

As other States have expressed today and previously, the definition of victims appears to be broader than is often found under domestic and international law, which might undermine consensus on this document and ultimately broad ratification. So we would encourage streamlining of this provision. Our key concerns include firstly, we would suggest that whilst there could reasonably be provision in this article for family members where the victim is deceased, Victims are normally classified as those who have directly suffered harm, as Japan and Saudi Arabia have already noted. Secondly, the definition of victim does not normally imply collective rights, and with notable exceptions, the UK does not accept the collective rights of communities, since human rights generally belong to individuals. Thirdly, we note that the definition is untethered to nationality and domicile requirements. Fourthly, we find the phrase "suffered harm intervening" unclear. If the bill is aimed at human rights defenders, the language could be more precise.

Thank you to the United Kingdom. Iceland, you have the floor.

Chair, on the definition of victims, Iceland encourages alignment with UNGA resolution 60/147. and its formulation of persons who have suffered harm individually or collectively, which we bring up in hopes of addressing the concerns regarding collective harm and which the current proposed reference to affected communities seeks to capture. Moreover, the qualifier in UNGA resolution 60/147, where it says, "where appropriate and in accordance with domestic law, apply to family members and to persons harmed while intervening." Iceland hopes that adding that reference may provide the legal clarity that has been commented on in this room today and previously as well. Thank you.

Thank you to Iceland. Any other state wishing to take the floor?

China, you have the floor.

China, you have the floor.

China, you have the floor.

Thank you. in the LIB. In our view, in order to.

Gather maximum consensus, we should stick to two principles. Firstly, the negotiation must be compatible with the mandate of 26.9 to limit the legally binding principle to business activities. Secondly, should also try to use the concepts already defined in international law and avoid controversial concepts which may be subject to different interpretations. In Article 1.1, here it refers to affected communities and those intervening to assess victims I'd like to see further clarification by legal experts so as to get a better understanding of their meaning. I thank you.

I'd like to thank China. Any other countries wishing to take the floor? That is not the case. So we'll now turn to the list of speakers representing civil society and other relevant stakeholders. Georgetown University, you have the floor.

Delegates, this is a statement by Helena Stefanou-Steka of Georgetown University on behalf of Change the Law Limited. Change the Law agrees with the Chair's proposals. To ensure inclusivity, we propose adding domestic or cohabiting partner, as not all states recognize this status in their domestic law, and many can face legal challenges to be recognized. The definition needs to have more inclusive language. Article 1.1 would read, "Victim shall mean any person or group of persons or affected communities who suffered a human rights abuse in the context of business activities, irrespective of the nationality or domicile of the victim, inclusive of sex, gender, children, age, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples, communities, migrants, refugees, internally displaced persons, legal natural person or persons. The term victim may also include the immediate family members, domestic or cohabiting partner, or dependents of the direct victim, and persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims in distress or to prevent human rights abuse in the context of business activities. A person shall be considered a victim regardless of whether the perpetrator of the human rights abuse is identified, apprehended, prosecuted or convicted. Thank you, Chair.

Muchas gracias.

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

Thank you, Chair. I speak jointly on behalf of IOE and USCIB. We are not supportive of this proposal. The UNGPs do not define victim, and they do not extend to broader categories of indirect claimants. The new reference to persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims in distress or to prevent human rights abuse goes even further. It is unclear who would qualify, how such harm would be linked to a business activity, or how a company could be expected to anticipate it. This would open an almost unlimited circle of potential claimants, creating uncertainty as to the scope of rights holders and remedies, and is simply not implementable. Furthermore, we do not support the reliance in the background on the 25 basic principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation. That resolution addresses gross violations on international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law. The UNGPs, endorsed later, follow a different approach centered on access to effective remedy grounded in the international bill of human rights and reflected in their third pillar. More fundamentally, the term victim confirms that status before any harm has been established through an educative process. This definition should therefore be redrafted in its entirety, starting with the replacement of victim by rights holder. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the Global Labor Movement.

We welcome.

The CECHS drafting changes, which align the text with the basic principles on the right to a remedy and reparation. We especially welcome the addition of the reference to persons who have suffered harm while intervening to assist victims.

Trade unionists around the world, as well as other human rights defenders, will greatly benefit from this change. Thank you, Chair.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you. I give the floor to the.

Institute for Policy Studies.

My name is Rosa Ramayipadi. I speak on behalf of Institute for Policy Studies, and I'm from the Southern African Movement Rural Women's Assembly. We are a member of the global campaign, and we have been participating in these negotiations since the beginning, to ensure the future treaty also reflects the struggles of peace and women in Africa and across the world. We know too well how corporate power and impunity are materialized in our territories, in our land and seeds, in our food sovereignty. We welcome the Chair's approach in this proposal, in particular the conclusion of affected communities, along with victims, which we have consistently defended. We reiterate we are not merely victims. We are political actors demanding and fighting for stronger regulations. However, we must flag that in its final part, the text refers only to human rights abuses and to business activities. For the text to be coherent with international human rights law and the growing consensus language which pairs violations and abuses, the term "human rights violations" should be included and harmonized throughout the text. This terminology was already retained by the Chair in some of his proposals, and we call for it to be used consistently throughout the treaty. It is equally important that the objective scope of the instrument be reflected in full, which requires the reference to business activities of a transnational character, in line with the scope in resolution 26/9 and our position for 1.4 and 1.5 that will be shared. We therefore urge the Chair to amend the closing wording accordingly so that the text is consistent, precise and faithful to the mandate. Thank you.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you. I give the floor now to ESCRnet.

Thank you, Chair. I read the statement on behalf of ESCRnet. We welcome the addition of "or affected communities" in the chair's proposal on article 1.1. As stated in the chair's proposal and proposed by several states in the last session, we also support the addition of "and persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims". However, we propose the removal of "in distress or to prevent human rights abuse in the context of business activities", as it unnecessarily narrows down the definition. This would entail that a person assisting a victim could only be considered a victim when intervening to prevent human rights abuse, and not if they intervened after the abuse has occurred, such as lawyers or NGOs supporting those affected, who are often intimidated and face immense reprisals. We also reject the proposal from some states that the concept of collective rights is not common under international human rights law and is understood to include only those who have experienced direct harm. International human rights law already recognizes collective rights, collective victimhood, and collective reparations. The binding treaty should reflect all three, rather than potentially reducing collective harm to an aggregation of individual injuries. Common Article 1 of the ICCPR and ICSCR recognizes the rights of peoples to self-determination and natural resources, while UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples expressly recognizes collective rights of Indigenous peoples. Furthermore, Principle 8 of UN General Assembly Resolution 60/147 also recognizes victims who have suffered harm individually or collectively. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much. That was the last speaker on my list. I would like to thank all States and representatives of civil society and other relevant stakeholders for the comments and observations related to Article 1.1 definition of victim. Now we will refer to the next proposal related to the adverse human rights impact that seeks to focus on the objective of the instrument. And this definition should be seen in connection with other parts of Article 1 that follow a logical order. A victim that suffers from human rights abuses, and this is an act or omission that has an adverse impact. And an adverse impact is something that reduces or removes the person's ability to enjoy human rights. The definition also appears in the definition of due diligence in article 1.8, due diligence, and 6.4b. That makes it possible to contextualize this in terms of prevention as referred to in the instrument during the intercessional discussions, some delegations suggested consolidating this definition with the definition of human rights abuses, and other delegations felt that we should keep both. And also there was a distinction between real and potential impact, and positions were expressed and references to safe health and sustainable environment. Some delegations also supported the elimination of a reference to human rights that are internationally recognized. And as a reference, they referred to the interpretative guide from 2024 of the Office of the High Commissioner, Access to Remedies in Cases of Human Rights Abuses Related to Enterprises. As a result of the language that is now being proposed includes three amendments. First, it specifies that the impact should arise in the context of business activities also. Secondly, it extends the definition to the ability of groups of persons or effective communities. in line with the proposals of article 1.1 and third it refers to the enjoyment of a human right without the words international a recognized and this is done in connection of proposals on article 3.3. Now I see that Time is running out, and I'm suggesting that we'll start with presentations by States tomorrow morning without interrupting our interactive discussions. So if there are no requests for the floor right now, so we'll be concluding our work for today, and we will meet again tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. I'd like to thank all of you for your participation. The meeting is adjourned.