6th meeting, 12th Session of Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Transnational Corporations
Human Rights Council
Date: 14 October 2026
Language: Floor (Original)
Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/es/asset/k1m/k1mb5dmwnd?lang=floor
Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations.

---

Presidente-Relator [0:00]:

Buenas tardes, distinguidos delegados, distinguidos participantes, declaro abierta la 6.ª reunión del 12.º periodo de sesiones del grupo de trabajo intergubernamental de composición abierta sobre las empresas transnacionales y otras empresas con respecto a los derechos humanos. derechos humanos. Al final de la reunión de la mañana, habíamos comenzado comenzado el intercambio en torno a la propuesta 16 con respecto al artículo 1.8, debida diligencia en materia de derechos humanos. cedo la palabra a el Reino Unido.


United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [1:06]:

Mr. Chair,

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


Presidente-Relator [1:45]:

Gracias al Reino Unido. Uruguay tiene la palabra.


Uruguay · Representante [1:59]:

Gracias, señor presidente relatorio. Buenas tardes para todos y todas. Con relación a esta propuesta, entendemos que la debida diligencia en materia de derechos humanos constituye constituye un componente central de la dimensión preventiva del futuro instrumento. Por eso, apoyamos mantener en el artículo uno los elementos esenciais de la definición de debida diligencia en materia de derechos humanos. Al mismo tiempo vemos mérito en que sus elementos operativos sean desarrollados en el artículo seis en el marco de las obligaciones sustantivas de prevención siempre que esta reorganización no implique una reducción de su alcance. En particular entendemos importante preservar los elementos actualmente contenidos en el artículo 1.8 relativos a la identificación y evaluación de los impactos negativos sobre los derechos humanos, su prevención y mitigación. El seguimiento de la eficacia de las medidas adoptadas. Y la comunicación periódica y accesible sobre las maneras en que dichos impactos son abordados. Particularmente a las personas afectadas o potencialmente afectadas. Dado que la nueva redacción del artículo seis será apresentada en una etapa posterior, entendemos que la valoración definitiva de esta reorganización deberá realizarse conjuntamente con este texto a fin de asegurar que se preserve íntegramente el contenido sustantivo actualmente previsto. Muchas gracias.


Presidente-Relator [3:23]:

Muchas gracias al Uruguay. Gana tiene la palabra.


Ghana [3:41]:

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


Presidente-Relator [3:54]:

Being algún otro Estado desea intervenir en este momento? El Estado de Palestina tiene la palabra.


State of Palestine [4:08]:

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


Presidente-Relator [4:19]:

Pardon pardon Perdón que interrumpa Estamos con la lista de oradores todavía de la propuesta 16 del artículo 18 sobre human rights due diligence Algún estado desea intervenir Bien si no es el caso procederemos con las intervenciones de representantes de la sociedad civil y otros actores relevantes Cedo la palabra a


Global Forum for the Defense of the Less Privileged [5:00]:

Thank you Mr

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


Presidente-Relator [5:43]:

Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra a la Organización Internacional de Empleadores.


IOE [5:53]:

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


Presidente-Relator [7:30]:

Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra a Cidze.


CIDSE · Représentant [7:38]:

Monsieur le Président

Rapporteur, je m'exprime au nom de CITESE, CCFD, Terres solidaires, Manos Unidas, Miselior, BD, Troker, Fast and Action et CAFOD. Nous saluons les efforts du président Raphaël. rapporteur visant à renforcer l'article 1,8 et à clarifier le lien entre la définition du devoir de vigilance et les obligations de fond prévues à l'article six. Toutefois, nous demeurons préoccupés par le fait que la proposition conserve le concept de devoir de vigilance en matière de droits humains sans reconnaître explicitement le devoir de vigilance en matière d'environnement. Les impacts sur l'environnement et les droits humains sont souvent intrinsèquement liés et devraient, par conséquent, être traités. dans le cadre d'un dispositif cohérent de devoir de vigilance. Dans sa version actuelle, l'article 1.8 fait référence au processus de devoir de vigilance et prévoit une obligation d'atténuer les atteintes aux droits humains. Toutefois, cette formule formulée cette obligation en termes d'atténuation risque de laisser entendre qu'un certain niveau d'atteinte aux droits humains est acceptable. Cela irait à l'encontre de l'objectif fondamental du traité, qui est de prévenir les atteintes aux droits humains. et mettre fin aux activités commerciales qui ont causé un dommage. Il est essentiel de clarifier le contenu de cette définition afin de garantir une interprétation cohérente des dispositions de l'instrument relative à la prévention. L'ensemble des éléments susmentionnés contribuerait à renforcer la finalité préventive du devoir de vigilance et permettrait de garantir que les risques et les incidences sur l'environnement soient dûment pris en compte dans la mise en œuvre de cet instrument. Enfin, et ce point est essentiel, comme nous l'avons souligné, lors des discussions sur les articles six et huit au cours de la 11ᵉ session, le devoir de vigilance en matière de droits humains et d'environnement ne doit pas automatiquement automatiquement exonérer une entreprise de sa responsabilité juridique, en cas de préjudice. ni faire obstacle à l'accès des victimes à la justice et des voies de recours effectives. Merci beaucoup.


Presidente-Relator [9:28]:

Muchas gracias. Cédo la palabra à University.


Georgetown University [9:38]:

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


Presidente-Relator [11:59]:

Muchas gracias Cedo la palabra International Trade Union Confederation.


ITUC [12:09]:

Thank you, Chair. I speak on behalf of the global labor movement. I will be brief. We support the suggest changes to the first sentence of Article 1.8 with the proposed adjustment and moving the rest of the text to the operative sections on human rights due diligence at Article six. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [12:29]:

Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra a tierra de derechos.


Terra de Direitos · Representante [12:37]:

Sr. Presidente, hablo en nombre de Terra de Direitos, Organización Brasileña de Derechos Humanos, integrante de la campaña global. La definición de debida diligencia en materia de derechos humanos presentada es deble, ya que no menciona las cadenas de valor y no presenta la debida diligencia como una obligación para. las empresas transnacionales. Utiliza el término problemático impactos adversos. Además en línea con la propuesta de SHR que simplifica la definición y pasar a debida diligencia al artículo 6. Defendemos deletar esta definición, de manera que no es necesario que sea definida en artículo uno y si presentada como una de las obrigações de prevención, que debe ser especificamente dirigida a las empresas en prevención. en prevención Recordamos aún que, se bien, la devida diligencia puede ser una herramienta útil siempre que se defina como una obrigación clara para las empresas transnacionales. El tratado debe abordar outros mecanismos de prevención, responsabilidades, responsabilidad y jurisdicción que los mecanismos de debida diligencia no cubren. Para ilustrar la insuficiencia de mecanismos no vinculantes y de prevención limitados a la debida diligencia, traemos a la atención de deste grupo de trabalho, el caso de Bayer. Em 25 de abril de dois mil e vinte e quatro, seis organizaciones de América Latina e de Europa apresentaram uma denuncia contra Bayer ante la Ponte Nacional de Contato de la OCDE en Alemanha, sede de la empresa. Documentamos impactos asociados a la expansión de la soja transgénica y la uso de glifosato en cuatro países. En Argentina, la contaminación, los graves problemas de la salud de las familias de la provincia de Pergamino. En Bolivia, la deforestación y la expropiación de territorios indígenas y campesinos. En Paraguay intoxicaciones e expulsión de familias campesinas. Y en Brasil violaciones de los derechos territoriales a la salud, a agua y a alimentación de los pueblos aba guarani. Hicieron base de esta denuncia en Brasil, tres comunidades indígenas que están cercanas de extensas plantaciones de soja transgénica con alto uso de pesticidas. Los análisis de laboratorio realizados en identificaron glifosato y ampa, en fuentes de agua utilizada por las comunidades. Los relatos incluyen intoxicaciones, sintomas recorrentes, pérdida de animales y danos a los huertas y a la producción de alimentos. La denuncia señaló violaciones de las directrices de OCDE en materia de conduta empresarial responsable. Sostenemos que Bayer no identificó, previno, ni abordó adecuadamente los impactos negativos de sus actividades y produtos a largo de sus cadenas de valor. Ni realizó una debida diligencia capaz de considerar los danos concretos sufridos por las comunidades. las comunidades. Apesar de la gravedad de las denuncias, el PNC alemán tornó más de 12 anos encerrar el procedimiento, no examinó los casos concretos, empujó resistências probatórias excessivas para esta etapa, y propuso una mediación limitada a las políticas generales de la empresa. Las organizaciones rechacharon esta propuesta porque esto no garantiza reconocimiento, responsabilización, ni reparación. El procedimiento se encerró sin una decisión sobre el fundo de las violações denunciadas. Señor Presidente, este caso demostra los limites de los mecanismos voluntarios y no judiciales. Las comunidades enfrentan enormes dificuldades para acceder a la información empresarial, producir pruebas técnicas costosas y estabelecer nexo causal. Mientras las empresas disponibles de recursos son muy superiores. Por eso, defendemos un tratado internacional jurídicamente vinculante que estabelezca obligaciones claras de prevención, la responsabilización solidaria de las empresas a largo de sus cadenas globales, cadenas globales de valor y el acceso efectivo a la justicia y a la reparación. Los derechos humanos no pueden depender de la capacidad de las víctimas para superar las barreras impuestas por el poder corporativo. corporativo. Muchas gracias.


Presidente-Relator [17:15]:

Muchas gracias. Ha sido el último orador de la lista. Agradezco a todos por sus contribuciones de las cuales he tomado debida nota. Corresponde ahora examinar la 17.ª propuesta relativa a la definición de recurso del artículo 1.9. El objetivo de esta reformulación es alinear el texto con las normas. internacionales de derechos humanos e introducir algunas precisiones conceptuales. Para ello, la propuesta distingue entre el término recurso, concepto amplio que abarca el acceso a la justicia, a la reparación y a la información. Y la reparación referida a las medidas concretas de reparación del daño. La definición vigente no se refiere a los recursos como tales entendidos en los principios y directrices básicos. Como los procesos o mecanismos judiciales y de otra índole a disposición de las víctimas. Su primera parte alude a la restitución que es sólo un elemento de la reparación integral. Y la segunda reitera la restitución añade otras formas de reparación y utiliza diversos calificativos para describir el recurso efectivo. En las consultas temáticas interseccionales se subrayó la necesidad de distinguir entre recurso reparación y restitución, manteniendo la noción de recurso efectivo de los principios rectores. Se propuso distinguir entre la obligación de los estados de garantizar el derecho a un acceso a un recurso efectivo, y la responsabilidad de las empresas de reparar. Se sugirieron Se sugirió una referencia general a la reparación plena. Y varias delegaciones y organizaciones apoyaron aclarar que la reparación debe ser accesible a todos. y responder a las necesidades particulares de las víctimas. Con posiciones diversas sobre la mención expresa del género la edad o la discapacidad. Como referencias y fuentes adicionales, se consideraron los párrafos 12 y 15 de los principios y directrices básicos, y el artículo 30 de los artículos sobre la responsabilidad del Estado por hechos internacionalmente ilícitos relativo a la cesación y la no repetición. Sobre esta base, la presidencia relatoría pone a consideración del grupo de trabajo una reformulación en dos párrafos. Primero, el artículo 1.9 definiría el derecho al recurso como el derecho de la víctima a un acceso igual y efectivo a la justicia, a una reparación adecuada, efectiva y rápida del daño sufrido, y al acceso a información pertinente sobre los abusos y los mecanismos de reparación siguiendo la estructura de los principios y directrices básicos. Segundo un nuevo artículo 19 bis. definiría la reparación como un conjunto de medidas individuales o combinadas tales como la restitución, indemnización, rehabilitación, satisfacción y sanciones que deberán ser adecuadas, efectivas y rápidas, y responder al género y a la edad e incluir a las personas con discapacidad. Cuando las circunstancias lo requieran, deberán garantizarse además la cesación del abuso y las seguridades y garantías adecuadas de no repetición. Con esta introducción ofrezco la palabra, en primer lugar, a los estados que deseen realizar intervenciones con comentarios a la propuesta 17 de reformulación del artículo uno 1.9.

El Estado de

Palestina tiene la palabra.


State of Palestine [22:06]:

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


Presidente-Relator [23:18]:

Muchas gracias al estado de Palestina. La Unión Europea tiene la palabra.


EU [23:38]:

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


Presidente-Relator [24:30]:

Muchas gracias a la Unión Europea Islandia tiene la palabra.


Iceland [24:42]:

Giving me the floor Iceland could be supportive of the current formulation, especially the distinction between the right to remedy and reparation. And also we suggest that in order to ensure coherence and consistency with ungar resolution 6147 to use the referenceful and effective reparation. in article 1.9 bis thank you.


Saudi Arabia · ممثل [25:22]:

فيما يتعلق بالمقترحات. المعنية ب 1.9 1.9 بس، تؤكد المملكة دعمها لتوفير سبل انتصاف فعالة لدى للأضرار المثبتة، وتلاحظ ان الصياغة المقترحة انشأت حقا في الانتصاف يشمل جبر الضرر عن الضرر الذي لحق بالضحية دون ربطه بالقانون الداخلي للدول أو بالإجراءات القانونية الواجبة. لذا تقترح المملكة ربط الحق في الوصول إلى العدالة بالقانون الداخلي للدول، والضمانات الإجرائية، وربط جبر الضرر بالضرر بالضرر الذي تثبته آلية قضائية أو آلية غير قضائية مختصة تابعة للدولة. كما تقترح المملكة السيد الرئيس إضافة فقرة جديدة، تنص على أن لا يفسر التعريفان في 1.9 و1.9 بس على أنهما ينشئان أو يفترضان المسؤولية القانونية لأي شخص طبيعي أو اعتباري. أو ينشئان نظاما لجبر الضرر منفصلا عن النظم القانونية للدول الأطراف. كما كما تقترح المملكة إتفاقا مع نهجها في الفقرة إثنين د، والتي سوف نتطرق لها لاحقا، أن يتم الإستعاضة عن الإشارة إلى أبعاد بعينها في الفقرة 1.9 بس بعبارة تراعي الإحتياجات الخاصة للضحايا دون تمييز. وشكرا السيد الرئيس.


Presidente-Relator [27:43]:

Muchas gracias, Arabia Saudita.

Brasil tiene la palabra.


Brazil [27:58]:

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


Presidente-Relator [28:30]:

Muchas gracias al Brasil. Algún otro estado desea intervenir en este momento.


United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [28:48]:

What appears to be the creation of a new framing of remedy and reparation under international human rights law. What is effective remedy is to be determined by reference to the specific circumstances of the rights, holder. The right to remedy is also already defined under international human rights law. One helpful model here could be article two three of the ICCPR, which provides for the right to an effective remedy that provision for the determination of that remedy by a competent authority, including judicial authorities, and for the enforcement of those remedies. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [29:28]:

Muchas gracias al Reino Unido. Sudáfrica tiene la palabra.


South Africa [29:40]:

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


Presidente-Relator [30:33]:

Muchas gracias a Sudáfrica Uruguay tiene la palabra.


Uruguay · Representante [30:50]:

Gracias señor presidente relator. Valoramos la propuesta de distinguir conceptualmente el derecho a un recurso efectivo de las distintas formas de reparación. esta diferenciación puede contribuir a una mayor claridad del instrumento y resulta coherente con la importancia que atribuimos al acceso efectivo a la justicia y a reparaciones adecuadas, efectivas y oportunas. En este sentido, consideramos positivo que la definición del derecho a un recurso efectivo comprenda el acceso igualitario y efectivo a la justicia, una reparación adecuada, efectiva y pronta por los daños sufridos y el acceso a información pertinente sobre los abusos. y los mecanismos de reparación disponibles. En cuanto al artículo 1.9 bis entendemos que podría resultar útil continuar examinando la referencia a las sanciones, particularmente su relación con las medidas satisfacción y las disposiciones del instrumento relativas a la determinación de responsabilidades a fin de asegurar una formulación coherente con los estándares internacionales pertinentes. Muchas gracias.


Presidente-Relator [31:53]:

Muchas gracias al Uruguay Algún otro estado desea intervenir? Bien. no parece ser el caso, entonces procedemos ahora con las intervenciones de representantes de la sociedad civil y otros actores relevantes. la organización internacional de empleadores tiene la palabra.


IOE [32:30]:

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


Presidente-Relator [34:16]:

Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra a Georgetown University.


Georgetown University [34:28]:

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


Presidente-Relator [35:37]:

Muchas gracias Cedo la palabra a Global Forum for the Defense of the Less Privileged.


Global Forum for the Defense of the Less Privileged [35:48]:

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


Presidente-Relator [36:31]:

Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra palabra a Sumik.


SUMEC · Representante [36:38]:

Gracias, señor presidente. Alirio Uribe Muñoz de Colombia intervengo a nombre de Sumec y de la campaña global. Apoyamos la nueva propuesta de la presidencia para el artículo 1.9 que aclara conceptos muy importantes del derecho internacional de los derechos humanos. Sin embargo resaltamos la omisión de violaciones junto con los abusos contra los derechos humanos. Pedimos que el término violación se utilice de manera coherente a lo largo del tratado. Además pedimos que se suprima la expresión si las circunstancias así lo requieren. Ya que el cese de violación de derechos humanos y la adopción de garantías y medidas de repetición adecuadas deben constituir obligaciones incondicionales y no medidas sujetas a circunstancias particulares. Presentamos el ejemplo. de reparación que hemos venido discutiendo en Colombia en 30 años que llevamos representando víctimas. En Colombia hay más de 10.4 millones de víctimas de graves violaciones de derechos humanos, de desplazamientos forzados, desaparecidos, asesinados, violencia sexual, detenciones arbitrarias, torturas, amenazas, exilios, confinamientos, reclutamiento de reclutamiento de niños y niñas, entre otras. Y más de 600 empresas nacionales y transnacionales han sido mencionadas en los expedientes de la comisión de la verdad en los expedientes judiciales. Y se han compulsado copias para que se investigue más de 15000 actores. que han sido responsabilizados de financiación o de beneficiarse del conflicto armado con temas de despojo de tierras, entre otros. Esta comisión de la verdad en el 2022 propone la reparación de las víctimas Superando el enfoque meramente económico para que haya una real reparación integral basada en el reconocimiento de la dignidad la verdad como valor restaurativo y el fortalecimiento de medidas. transformadoras. Se propone la verdad como un acto reparador, reconocimiento público de lo ocurrido de las responsabilidades individuales y colectivas y de las afectaciones que buscan dignificar a las víctimas de forma extrajudicial. Las medidas de reparación integral que pueden ser ejemplo para el tratado vinculante son la indemnización o compensación por los daños sufridos. Con énfasis en población en poblaciones vulnerables como las mujeres víctimas de violencia sexual. La rehabilitación para fortalecer el acompañamiento psicosocial y la salud física y mental de las víctimas. La restitución, que es la devolución de tierras y bienes despojados durante el conflicto. La satisfacción que son actos de reconocimiento de la memoria, monumentos, disculpas públicas y el impulso de espacios como museos de la memoria. Y garantías de no repetición que son las reformas estructurales que se deben adoptar para que la violencia no vuelva a cubrir. Reformas institucionales también de política pública. En el caso de Colombia avanzar en los procesos de diálogo y. negociación. Transformar la política de drogas apostando por políticas de regulación. Y bueno crear instituciones como ministerios de paz de convivencia y dar continuidad a la recomendaciones de la Comisión de la Verdad. Muchas gracias señor presidente.


Presidente-Relator [39:59]:

Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra DKA Australia.


DKA Austria [40:06]:

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


Presidente-Relator [42:23]:

Muchas gracias DKA Austria.


FIAN [42:38]:

Thank you Chair I make this statement. on behalf of Fian International and ESCRNET. We would like to illustrate the importance of Articles 1.9 and 1.9 bits through the Kawori case in Uganda. Chair, in August 2001, the inhabitants of four villages in Mwende in central Uganda, approximately 4000 people representing more than 400 families were violently evicted from the land of over 2000 hectares they had been living on for years. And since then, the land has been turned into a coffee plantation by a subsidiary of Kaweri Coffee Plantation, that belongs to a company based in German, the Newman Cafe Group. The affected families filed a lawsuit in 2002, yet it has taken more than two decades before compensation began and this has only happened for a few families. Many of the evicties died waiting for justice. Meanwhile, the company continued operating and generating profits from the disputed land. Even the compensation eventually provided did not include interest despite the prolonged suffering of the affected families. This case chair demonstrates the importance of having effective and prompt reparation. It is not merely a theoretical requirement. It also illustrates illustrates the importance of measures to prevent continuing harm, including the possibility of halting activities on disputed land while judicial proceedings. are ongoing. The consequences of these evictions extend beyond those that are directly displaced. It includes relatives, neighbors, neighbors and surrounding communities that have to provide shelter, food, care, placing additional burdens on their livelihoods and well-being. A victim's dependence on others disrupts the cohesion and well-being of community members and it adds pressure to the surrounding peasant communities. It is therefore key that the definition of victims under 1.1, which is key to the definition of remedy, also extends to affected communities. Turning to Article 1.9, therefore, we note the change of title from remedy to right to remedy. We stress that this definition must not narrow existing international human rights standards, including those under ICCPR or create confusion by suggesting that the treaty establishes a new right rather than recognizing an existing one. Similarly, for Article 1.9 Bis, we note the new definition of reparation, which should also be aligned with international human rights law standards and interpretation, including the UN Human Rights Committee and UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion of Truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence. We welcome the inclusion of disability inclusive dimensions while emphasizing that access to justice must respond to the needs of those affected groups as. well. We further call for the deletion of quote unquote if circumstances so require from the provision of session and guarantees of non repetition. Such conditional language risks weakening the obligations to ensure that ongoing human rights abuses cease. We also want to challenge strongly the assertion made in the room that, the United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights don't define remedy. These principles dedicate an entire section, pillar three access to remedy to elaborating its various dimensions, structuring and providing remedy for business related human rights abuses. The commentary commentary to Principle 25 explicitly identifies different forms of remedy, including including restitution, rehabilitation, compensation, sanctions, and guarantees of non-repetition. To suggest that they do not address the meaning and content of remedies there for misleading. Finally, chair, and importantly, the definitions of right to remedy and reparation should closely be reviewed to ensure coherence and alignment with their use in other relevant articles throughout the treaty. Thank you, Chair.


Presidente-Relator [47:11]:

Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra. In International Trade Union Confederation.


ITUC [47:19]:

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


Presidente-Relator [47:52]:

Just gracias. Cedo la palabra Franciscans International.


Franciscans International [48:00]:

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


Presidente-Relator [50:24]:

Muchas gracias. la palabra International Collective in Support of Fish Workers.


ICSF · Representante [50:34]:

Muchas gracias, señor presidente. Marcela Ramos de Chile. Hablo en nombre del Foro Mundial de Pueblos de Pescadores y en representación del colectivo internacional de apoyo a los trabajadores de la pesca. Ambos miembros de la campaña global. Saludamos la nueva propuesta de la presidencia para el artículo 1.9 que clarifica conceptos muy importantes del derecho internacional de los derechos humanos, al definir tanto el derecho a un recurso como la reparación. Sin embargo, la Presidencia omite hacer referencia en los artículos 1.9 y 1.9 bis a las violaciones, junto con los abusos de derechos humanos. Hacemos un llamado al uso coherente y consistente del término violación a lo largo de todo el tratado. Asimismo solicitamos la eliminación en el artículo 1.9 bis de la expresión si las circunstancias así lo exigen. Ya que la cesación de las violaciones de derechos humanos y el otorgamiento de seguridades y garantías adecuadas de no repetición deben ser obligaciones incondicionales. Y no medidas supeditadas a circunstancias particulares. Este punto es de gran importancia para nuestros pueblos y territorios, y en especial para las comunidades pescadoras. Debemos asegurar que las empresas transnacionales que han hecho uso de nuestros ecosistemas para obtener millonarias ganancias, asuman la responsabilidad que tienen por la violación de nuestros derechos humanos. Y reparen y regeneren la tierra y el mar. Para que se recupere en parte el patrimonio cultural y biológico perdido por la actividad industrial. Tal es el caso de Chile en donde durante 50 años de funcionamiento la industria se salmonera en el sur se han cometido innumerables violaciones a los derechos humanos. Como ejemplos, por un lado, desde 2013 a la fecha ha habido alrededor de 100 accidentes laborales con resultado de muerte. Y por otro, hay más de 400 concesiones salmoneras en áreas protegidas. De la Patagonia. El derecho contemplado en este artículo debe garantizar una reparación integral que incluya la cesación de las violaciones y garantías adecuadas de no repetición. Muchas gracias.


Presidente-Relator [53:05]:

Muchas gracias Ha sido el último orador de la lista Agradezco a todos por sus contribuciones de las que he tomado debida nota Pasamos ahora a la 18.ª propuesta relativa a la definición de agencias estatales relevantes del artículo 1.10 Esta definición comprende los órganos judiciales las autoridades competentes y otros organismos y servicios encargados de la supervisión administrativa y de la aplicación de las medidas previstas en el instrumento Cabe recordar que durante la 11.ª sesión al examinar el artículo 12 se solicitaron elementos de análisis sobre la referencia a las agencias estatales a las autoridades centrales o a los mecanismos judiciales y no judiciales Y se señaló que la expresión agencias estatales podría no ser lo suficientemente precisa para designar el tipo de autoridad prevista en la práctica de la asistencia judicial recíproca Por lo que en las consultas temáticas interseccionales varias delegaciones apoyaron la eliminación de esta definición Al respecto es preciso considerar que numerosos instrumentos del derecho internacional de los derechos humanos y del derecho internacional general reconoce que cada estado cumple sus obligaciones internacionales a través de sus propios órganos y mecanismos Incluidas las autoridades judiciales administrativas y legislativas Tal como refleja el artículo cuatro de los artículos sobre la responsabilidad del Estado por hechos internacionalmente ilícitos El instrumento seguiría el mismo enfoque dejando a cada estado parte la distribución de funciones entre sus órganos Por ello y considerando que no resulta necesario definir conceptos que tienen un sentido corriente en el derecho internacional y que no adquieren un significado específico en este instrumento la presidencia relatoría sugiere eliminar el artículo 1.10 sin perjuicio de que en las disposiciones operativas que utilizan esta expresión como el artículo 12 los estados consideren la terminología más adecuada en cada caso Con esta breve introducción ofrezco la palabra en primer lugar a los estados que deseen realizar intervenciones con comentarios a la propuesta 18 relativa al artículo 1.10 El Estado de Palestina


State of Palestine [56:22]:

Thank you excellency

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


Presidente-Relator [57:19]:

Muchas gracias, Brasil tiene la palabra.


Brazil [57:26]:

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


Presidente-Relator [58:17]:

Muchas gracias. Algún otro estado desea intervenir? Bien si no es el caso. entonces pasamos a las intervenciones de representantes de la sociedad civil y otros actores relevantes. Cedo la palabra a Global Forum for the Defense of the Less Privileged.


Global Forum for the Defense of the Less Privileged [58:46]:

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


Presidente-Relator [59:24]:

Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra a la Organización Internacional de Empleadores.


IOE [59:34]:

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

Thank you.


ITUC [1:00:50]:

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


Presidente-Relator [1:01:18]:

Of the Earth international.


Friends of the Earth International [1:01:21]:

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


Presidente-Relator [1:01:58]:

Este fue el último orador de la lista. Agradezco a todos su contribución.

Bien, muchas gracias a a todos.

Antes de pasar al examen del artículo 12, quisiera ofrecer la palabra a los expertos jurídicos que asisten a esta presidencia relatoría. relatoría para que puedan referirse a las preguntas que les han sido formuladas previamente en el marco de esta sesión. En primer lugar, está la consulta de China sobre el artículo 1.8. 1.1 que solicita mayor claridad sobre el significado y alcance de las nociones de comunidades afectadas. Y de las personas que intervienen para asistir a las víctimas. En segundo lugar está la pregunta planteada por la Confederación Sindical Internacional en nombre del movimiento sindical mundial en relación con la propuesta 14. La pregunta es si la redacción y la definición actuales, explican adecuadamente el concepto de cadena de valor global para la aplicación efectiva del instrumento jurídicamente vinculado. vinculante. Asimismo, invito a los expertos a compartir, si lo estiman pertinente, algunas observaciones generales sobre el artículo 1 a la luz de los comentarios escuchados en sala., cedo la palabra entonces a los expertos jurídicos.


Experto jurídico [1:04:19]:

Muchas gracias, señor presidente. Señor presidente relator, quisiéramos tomar la oportunidad para agradecer esta oportunidad de intervenir en este proceso y de presentar algunas apreciaciones sobre algunas de las discusiones que han tenido lugar en la sala. Quisiera comenzar agradeciendo a la delegación de China por la pregunta formulada e inicio señalando lo siguiente. Comunidades afectadas es un término que ha sido promovido en el contexto de esa negociación. y que podría considerarse que refleja un significado específico para efectos de la protección de los derechos humanos. De una manera similar al término grupo de personas aunque potencialmente con alcances diferenciados. En términos generales podría considerarse que el término grupo de personas incluido en el actual borrador del instrumento que se encuentra reflejado en los principios y directrices básicos sobre reparación. con la palabra colectivamente potencialmente cubre el término comunidades afectadas. Sin embargo también hay ciertos derechos que no son únicamente utilizados en el sentido de grupos de personas. personas, sino en el sentido de derechos que son ejercidos colectivamente en atención a la naturaleza específica de ciertas agrupaciones con características compartidas o comunes. Distintos instrumentos del derecho internacional de los derechos humanos han reconocido derechos colectivos desde convenciones hasta declaraciones. El primer ejemplo de lo anterior es la Convención Internacional sobre el eliminación de todas las formas de discriminación racial de 1965, que en su artículo 14 se refiere expresamente a grupos racionales o étnicos raciales. raciales discúlpenme o étnicos o de ciertas personas. Y en el 2.A al deber estatal de no incurrir en ningún acto o práctica de discriminación racial contra personas grupos de personas, o instituciones. A partir de ahí distintos tratados han abordado derechos que pueden ser ejercidos individual o colectivamente así como al deber estatal de protección correspondiente. Lo anterior es relevante para la determinación de la forma en que las obligaciones internacionales se traducen al derecho interno tras la entrada en vigor de un determinado instrumento. En ese sentido, se vuelve imprescindible integrar el instrumento internacional de conformidad con la práctica nacional sin disminuir la efectividad del mismo. Ello implica que en su implementación de una obligación internacional los estados puedan utilizar distintas figuras jurídicas para reconocer conforme a su propio contexto y sistema jurídico la manera en que se ejercen o protegen ciertos derechos. Incluyendo de colectividades. o comunidades. Existen diversos ejemplos acciones colectivas para la protección de derechos ambientales, que existe en numerosos países, o los derechos ejercidos por pueblos indígenas quilombolas o afrodescendientes que en muchos casos también gozan de derechos que se ejercen no solamente de forma individual sino colectivamente. En ambos casos el litigio civil o administrativo de números numerosos estados reconocen la posibilidad tanto de acciones colectivas como de medidas de protección colectivas. En vista de lo anterior consideramos que el término que se ha planteado en esta discusión. discusión comunidades afectadas puede incluirse dentro del concepto de grupos de personas, pero también reconocer la existencia de derechos que se ejercen de forma colectiva. En lo que concierne a las personas que intervienen para asistir a las víctimas, se puede interpretar en este contexto como una referencia expresa a personas defensoras de los derechos humanos o el medio ambiente. Su reconocimiento en el derecho internacional se, encuentra en la resolución 53 barra 144 de 1998 adoptada por consenso por la Asamblea General. La referencia presentada en esa disposición surge directamente directamente de los principios y directrices básicos sobre reparación también adoptada por consenso por la Asamblea General en 2005. En ese sentido nos gustaría señalar que, como lo mencionaron distintas delegaciones el día de ayer, y el día de hoy, es importante utilizar conceptos que ya se encuentran definidos en el derecho internacional, en particular a partir de decisiones adoptadas por la comunidad internacional de estados. Con esto cedo la palabra a mi colega Mijaela barns para la intervención sobre la pregunta respecto de cadenas de valor gracias.


Legal expert [1:09:06]:

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


Legal expert [1:11:55]:

Thank you chair and

Good afternoon friends and colleagues. We thought it might be helpful to consider the provisions we've been discussing today against a hypothetical case scenario. To see how they would apply and whether they would work. So the scenario that I'm going to suggest is one where we have a multinational gold mining company, which is headquartered in the global north and has its operations in the global south. And the relationship between the parent and subsidiary is such that the parent exercises a significant degree of control and influence over the subsidiary. And what has been happening on, this mine for many years is that local villagers have been going on to the mine and taking bits of gold bearing rock. And, the mine, in response to this, the mine security has called the local police who have shot and killed a number of the villagers. And this has been going on for a long time. And despite the brutality, the demonstrated brutality of the local police, the mine continues to call the police, and the parent comes company, which knows what is going on, fails to stop the subsidiary from doing this. And ultimately, then, the villagers are keen to prevent this from going on. And they also want to be compensated or the families want to be compensated for the deaths. So turning to the definitions that we've been discussing today, there are clearly victims as under 11, there have been adverse human rights rights impacts in the sense that harm has been suffered, which has entailed the reduction of a recognized internationally recognized human right. And human rights abuse has occurred in the sense that the a significant cause of the adverse human rights impacts have been acts and omissions on the part of the, companies, the parent and the subsidiaries. And those are the result or involve business activities of those companies. Now, in terms of business activities, then under the proposed new definition, specific reference is made to extraction. So here we're talking about mining of gold, So that's clearly extraction. Just an interesting point on human rights abuse. There was a discussion a lot of discussion this morning about abuse being the right term when it involves business and violations. The correct term when the abuse stems from states, and activities. But here you have the combined effect where the direct perpetrators were state forces. But the there is an involvement of business. So that's an interesting combination there of abuse and violation, I think, which highlights a potential issue. Business activities of a transnational character. Well, in this situation, all three criteria in one five are satisfied. So you have the business activity being undertaken in more than one jurisdiction by the parent and the subsidiary. A significant part of the activity being carried out in more than one state. And although part of the activity is in one state, the effect is in another, namely the human rights abuses. The business relationship, well, clearly parent and subsidiary involved here, So that is satisfied too. Going on to 18, which is really which is human rights due diligence which is the the central issue in terms of prevention. Well, they're clearly the states, both states, the home state, and the host state of the company have obligations under international law to prevent harm. And for the two states concerned, concerned. In the case of the host state, that would entail regulating and controlling the behavior of the local police and of the subsidiary company, which is a host state company. And in the case of the home state, which has an obligation to prevent harm not just within its own jurisdiction, but extraterritorially, too, there is an obligation then to take steps to moderate the conduct of the parent company. Now, When it comes to the two companies, the parent company is required to apply human rights due diligence to in particular to control the behavior of the subsidiary. And the subsidiary too has human rights due diligence obligations under this proposed treaty. regarding access to remedy under 19 from the the villagers perspective they need access to. a court. And let's assume in this instance that they're not able to obtain access to justice locally for a variety of reasons. That means they need to be able to obtain access to justice in the home state courts. So there needs to be access to a remedy there. But that would also entail, because the claim in the host state courts would be against the parent company a route to establishing legal liability against the parent company. So that's something that comes into Article eight. And now that's I think a not an unusual scenario. But let's just add a level of elaboration to this to make it even more topical because, although this is hypothetical, it's obviously based on on real life situations. Now let's imagine that this multinational company exports its gold and exports it to a state. where there is an accreditation body which is established by the industry, which certifies the gold as having been ethically produced. And without this accreditation, it's not possible to export the gold to that country. And this accreditation body, despite despite all the evidence that is publicly available about what has been happening to villagers encroaching onto this mine, certifies this gold. Well, that then gives rise to issues around the responsibility of the accreditation body. And I think if one then goes back through the same exercise looking at these provisions in the treaty, Well, the position is the same when one looks at victims, adverse human rights impact, human rights abuse, And now, business business activity now the business activity here of the accreditation body is that it charges businesses, gold mining companies, a fee for the accreditation. That's its business. And what would be said about the accreditation company is that if it had done its job properly, then it would have refused the accreditation. accreditation because of what had happened at the mine. And the mine the mining company would then have been in a position where it couldn't export the gold. And in order to carry on its business, it would have had to improve its human rights conduct. The company would have had it done that, then it's possible that further deaths and injuries could have been avoided. So that's the the argument against the accreditation company. And in terms of the business relationship then there is a provision in the in 16 for a business relationship. relationship to involve a relationship which includes the value chain. And given that the accreditation company is charging the gold mining company for the accreditation, then I think one could argue that quite compellingly that the accreditation company, accreditation company was part of the value chain. So that's a more complex situation. But I think it hopefully highlights how this treaty can work in different situations. That's not in any way to detract from some of the complexities that have been raised today, particularly around, I think, environmental cases but hopefully it can be seen to be workable, thank you.


Presidente-Relator [1:24:03]:

Muchas gracias eh Quinta, señora Quinta Mohammadie tiene la palabra.


Legal expert [1:24:16]:

Mr. Monsieur Mr. Monsieur Mr. Monsieur Mr. Monsieur Mr. Monsieur Mr. Monsieur Mr. Monsieur Mr.

Monsieur Mr. Monsieur Mr. Monsieur Mr. Monsieur Mr. Monsieur Mr. Monsieur Mr. Monsieur Mr. Monsieur Mr. Monsieur Mr. Monsieur Mr. Monsieur Mr. Monsieur Monsieur. Monsieur Mr. Monsieur. Monsieur Mr. Monsieur. Monsieur. Monsieur. Monsieur. Monsieur. Monsieur. Monsieur. Monsieur. Monsieur. Monsieur. Monsieur. Monsieur. Monsieur. Monsieur. Monsieur. Monsieur. Monsieur. Monsieur. Monsieur. Monsieur. Monsieur. Monsieur. Monsieur. Monsieur. on 14.5, but I realized the delegation of Pakistan might not be in the room now, so you might want to defer dealing with the question till later, or do you want to address it now?


Presidente-Relator [1:24:42]:

Okay.


Legal expert [1:24:49]:

So the delegation of Pakistan addressed the consequences or raised the question in relation to the consequences of lack of compatibility between the treaties that are addressed under 14. five meaning what would result in in the case of a finding of. lack of compatibility. So in this regard, some elements to account for. First of all, as currently drafted, the provision for 14. five would operate generally within the framework set by the vienna convention on the law of treaties. And in that regard, And this provision would provide guidance from states on how human rights would be systematically integrated. Integrated or systemically integrated when interacting with other legal regimes that are covered under this provision, which mentions trade and investment, but also other treaties that are relevant to the legally binding instrument. So as noted in more details in the intervention by the group of experts last October, this guidance would build on what is provided for under article 31.3 and point c of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties in relation to the the interpretation of treaties. Now, under the current drafting of 14 point five compatibility is addressed in relation to interpretation and implementation only thus specifically provides guidance to the authorities involved in the. two aspects. The article as currently drafted does not set an obligation on revisiting existing treaties. In relation to interpretation, thus, this guidance would be to the authorities interpreting or applying the concerned rules, such as courts, adjudicators interpreting the treaties. In relation to investment investment treaties, there was a lot of mention yesterday of the arbitrators, for example, in the case of investor state dispute settlement that would be applying these treaties or enforcing these treaties. When it comes to implementation, the guidance would concern authorities involved in implementing the covered agreements, such as the implementation of trade and investment agreements. So if we want to think of the consequences of non compatibility, a finding of non compatibility in interpretation or implementation of the treaty treaties could be determined by state authorities responsible for implementing the legally binding instrument or other relevant human rights instruments to the LBI. And this could be one case. Another case could be that finding of noncompatibility could come in the observations, for example, of the committees, the committee that will be established as part of the institutional arrangements of the LBI, because the committees will be reviewing state practice and giving observations in the. this regard. So basically, what would result from this kind of these kinds of findings is the standard practice, which we find also in relation to other human rights treaties that the state will have to take action in order to advance towards fulfilling its obligations and, in this case, achieving compatibility. So the action required in this in this regard will depend on the nature of the issue under consideration and whether it relates to implementation or interpretation. If the issue relates to implementation, such as for example, implementing an investment agreement through providing certain incentives to the covered investors or investments. The responsible state authorities in this context will have to review the measure, in light of the assessment of the human rights implications of this measure or the human rights implications of the kind of treatment that is given. to the investor. In the case of interpretation, if we are talking, for example, about interpreting a treaty among two or more parties, the relevant state authorities could be required to work with other parties to that agreement to ensure that the interpretation is done in a compatible way. And here, for example, there is ample existing practice in this regard, whereby, and if we want to talk about investment treaties, we can see that there is there is practice where the state parties to investment treaties, including bilateral and multilateral investment, Multilateral investment treaties frequently issue unilateral joint or multilateral letters, declarations, or other interpretative instruments to guide or control how the interpretation of their treaties is undertaken. And this is part of the role of states as masters of their own treaties. So these are some kind of examples. Just for the purpose of illustration of how action will will be undertaken in the case or as a consequence of. a finding of incompatibility. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [1:31:12]:

Muchas gracias a los expertos jurídicos señora Quinda Mohammadie señor Humberto Canto Rivera señora Micaela Barnes y señor Richard Miran por sus muy útiles. intervenciones y precisiones jurídicas. Vamos entonces a continuar ahora con la decimonovena propuesta relativa al artículo two sobre la declaración de propósito statement of purpose del instrumento. El objetivo de esta reformulación es fortalecer su plena conformidad con el lenguaje y el espíritu del mandato de la Resolución 26/9 del. Consejo de Derechos Humanos. Este artículo enuncia los cinco propósitos del instrumento clarificar y facilitar la aplicación de las obligaciones de los estados, Clarificar y asegurar el respeto de las responsabilidades de las empresas. Prevenir los abusos. Asegurar el acceso a la justicia y a la reparación. y fortalecer la asistencia judicial recíproca y la cooperación internacional. En las consultas temáticas interseccionales, un número importante de delegaciones apoyaron preservar la distinción entre las obligaciones de los estados y las responsabilidades de las empresas, conforme al enfoque de los principios rectores. principios rectores, mientras que otras delegaciones y organizaciones apoyaron referirse a obligaciones de las empresas. Varias delegaciones y organizaciones apoyaron también mantener la expresión asegurar el respeto y la realización. En lugar de acoger la propuesta de facilitar la aplicación efectiva. Y también se discutió la referencia a la mitigación y los calificativos aplicables al acceso a la justicia. Al respecto, cabe señalar que el proyecto actualizado circunscribe las obligaciones jurídicas de las empresas al ámbito interno, a través del deber de los estados de regular. Y que conforme a los principios rectores las empresas no tienen actualmente obligaciones derivadas directamente del derecho internacional de los derechos humanos. sino la responsabilidad de respetarlos. Durante las consultas interseccionales se observaron además varios elementos, entre los que me permito destacar que la mayoría de los tratados internacionales establecen un deber de garantizar los derechos, por lo que la expresión facilitar la aplicación efectiva. Podría interpretarse como un deber de menor intensidad que algunas actividades empresariales no pueden prevenir por completo los abusos. Lo que aconseja mantener la referencia. a la mitigación. Y que referirse a una justicia que responda a la edad e incluya la discapacidad, en línea con el artículo 13 de la Convención sobre los derechos de las personas con discapacidad extendería la protección más allá de los niños, incluyendo a las personas mayores. Con estos elementos, la presidencia relatoría propone ajustes puntuales que preservan la estructura del artículo. Primero, en el apartado b referirse a las responsabilidades de las empresas transnacionales y otras empresas. Retomando la terminología de la resolución 26 barra nueve. Segundo en el apartado c añadir la expresión cito en particular las de carácter transnacional. Fin de la cita en línea con los apartados a y e y sustituir. sustituir la noción de exigibilidad enforceability por la de aplicación efectiva enforcement Tercero en el aparato el apartado d, añadir que la justicia deberá responder también a la edad age responsive e incluir la discapacidad disability inclusive. en coherencia con la propuesta relativa al artículo 1.9 bis. Los apartados AIE se mantienen en su redacción actual. Con esta introducción ofrezco la palabra, en primer lugar, a los estados que deseen realizar intervenciones con comentarios a las propuestas a la propuesta 19 de reformulación de la artículo dos.

Arabia Saudita tiene la palabra.


Saudi Arabia · ممثل [1:37:05]:

السيد الرئيس السيد الرئيس فيما يخص المقترحات للتعديلات الواردة في الفقرات. 2 ب و2 د تجدد المملكة موقفها بإبقاء الفقرة د على تأكيد النفاذ الى العدالة ووسائل الانتصاف بشكل عام دون تحديد فئات دون اخرى، ودون ادخال مفاهيم لم تحظى بتوافق دولي واسع. ونقترح الاستعاضة عن الفئات المحددة بعبارة الضحايا دون تمييز، وذلك بما يكفل الشمول والمساواة بين الضحايا ما تطبيق الصيغة ذاتها في الفقرتين والمادة 157 ضمانا للإتصاق. كما تلاحظ المملكة أن عبارة ضمان احترام مسؤوليات والوفاء بها في مطلع الفقرة ب قد توحي بإلتزام بتحقيق نتيجة يقع على الدول إزاء سلوك جهات خاصة. ونقترح في هذا السياق الاستعاضة عنها بعبارة تعزيز احترام الى اخره. وشكرا السيد الرئيس.


Presidente-Relator [1:38:49]:

Muchas gracias a Arabia Saudita. La Unión Europea tiene la palabra.


EU [1:39:00]:

Thank you. Regarding Article two, we reiterate our concern on emphasizing

Business activities of

A transnational character in the statement of purpose, including the accompanying considerations. The prevention of abuses and protection of victims should extend to business activities generally. A consistent and streamlined reference to vulnerability and marginalization, with examples in the substantial provisions, could also be worthwhile. We expressly welcome the specific reference to gender and age responsive, child sensitive, disability inclusive, and victim centered justice. This language should be preserved and reflected consistent.


Presidente-Relator [1:39:52]:

Muchas gracias a la Unión Europea Islandia tiene la palabra.


Iceland [1:40:13]:

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


Presidente-Relator [1:40:56]:

Muchas gracias a Islandia. Cuba tiene la palabra.


Cuba · Representante [1:41:08]:

Muchas gracias señor presidente. Cuba valora los esfuerzos realizados para alinear el lenguaje del artículo dos con el alcance propuesto en la Resolución 26 nueve, especialmente en el inciso b. Coincidimos que lograron lograr este propósito contribuirá al logro de un documento claro y balanceado. En este sentido, y para contribuir al propósito del presidente, con este artículo sugerimos eliminar las frases including those or particulares dos presentes en los incisos a, C y D, a partir de la cual se puede presumir que este lenguaje implica a todas las actividades empresariales y no solamente a aquellas de las empresas transnacionales y otras empresas de carácter transnacional. Más allá de eso, Cuba puede apoyar las propuestas del presidente, especialmente aquellas que están dedicadas a asegurar el acceso a una justicia con perspectiva de género, edad, sensible a la niñez, inclusiva a la discapacidad y centrada en las víctimas. Igual en este punto somos flexibles para apoyar cualquier propuesta que pueda ser de consenso y que el presidente considere oportuna. Muchas gracias.


Presidente-Relator [1:42:29]:

Muchas gracias a Cuba el estado de Catar tiene la palabra.


Qatar [1:42:46]:

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


Presidente-Relator [1:43:50]:

Muchas gracias al Estado de Qatar China tiene la palabra.


China · 代表 [1:43:59]:

先生 中方 在 有关 问题 上 的 立场 是 一贯 的 即 谈判 必须 符合。 第二十六 二十六 9号 决议 的 授权 因此 关于 第二条 包括 稍后 会 讨论 的 第三条。 中方 都 认为 应当 采取 适当 措辞 将本 法律 文书 的 宗旨 适用范围 限定 在 跨国 性质 的 工商业 活动。 关于 第二条 闭款 建议 修改 为 澄清 并 促进 尊重人权 的 责任。 与 UNGPS 有关 表述 相一致 关于 第二条 地款。 中方 认为 现有 文本 相关 表述 仍 有 法律 上 的 模糊性 和 不确定性 愿 提出 修改 具体 案文。 to ensure access to effective, adequate, and timely remedy for victims of human rights abuses in the context of business activities of a transnational character in a justice process sensitive to the protection protection of women, children, and other persons in vulnerable situation.


Presidente-Relator [1:45:43]:

Muchas gracias a China el Estado de Palestina tiene la palabra.


State of Palestine [1:45:58]:

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


Presidente-Relator [1:47:00]:

Muchas gracias al estado de Palestina. El Reino Unido tiene la palabra.


United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [1:47:13]:

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


Presidente-Relator [1:47:26]:

Muchas gracias al Reino Unido. Brasil tiene la palabra.


Brazil [1:47:44]:

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


Presidente-Relator [1:49:10]:

Muchas gracias al

Brasil Uruguay tiene la palabra.


Uruguay · Representante [1:49:26]:

Gracias señor presidente relator. Valoramos positivamente los ajustes propuestos en el artículo dos en particular aquellos que contribuyen a precisar los objetivos del instrumento. y reforzar su coerencia interna. En lo que se refiere al apartado b, consideramos importante mantener una distinción clara entre las obligaciones de los estados en materia de derechos humanos y la responsabilidad de las empresas de respetarlos de conforme. con el marco general que ha orientado estas, la posición de Uruguay en estas negociaciones. A respecto del apartado C, tomamos nota de la incorporación de referencia específica a las actividades empresariales de carácter transnacional. Y a este respecto consideramos importante que dicha referencia sea interpretada de manera coherente con un ámbito de aplicación amplio del instrumento, y que no pueda entenderse como una limitación de las obras obligaciones de prevención respecto a otras actividades empresariales. Asimismo, apreciamos los ajustes introducidos en el apartado d, que refuerza un enfoque centrado en las víctimas y reconoce la necesidad de que el acceso a la justicia y recursos efectivos tenga debidamente en cuenta el género y la edad, sea sensible a las necesidades de los niños y las niñas y de las personas con discapacidad. Finalmente, entendemos que la consideración de este apartado debe realizarse conjuntamente con el artículo 3.1 A fin de asegurar que la formulación final preserve plenamente el alcance general del instrumento y evite posibles lagunas de protección. Muchas gracias.


Presidente-Relator [1:50:54]:

Muchas gracias. al Uruguay. Algún otro estado desea intervenir en este momento? Japón tiene la palabra.


Japan [1:51:10]:

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


Presidente-Relator [1:52:21]:

Thank you. Muchas gracias al Japon. algún otro estado desea intervenir? Bien, Sudáfrica tiene la palabra.


South Africa [1:52:42]:

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


Presidente-Relator [1:53:17]:

Muchas gracias a

Sudáfrica. Algún otro estado desea intervenir? si no es el caso entonces pasamos a las intervenciones de representantes de sociedad civil y de otros actores relevantes. Cedo la palabra a Center for Constitutional Rights.


CCR [1:53:59]:

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


Presidente-Relator [1:55:41]:

Which Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra a Cidse.


CIDSE · Representante [1:55:53]:

O shi

Me hacke. Gracias señor presidente relator. Intervengo en nombre del consejo del pueblo maya de Guatemala CPO Sidse y sus miembros aliados. Soy maya poppi de Guatemala y desde las experiencias de los territorios que han sufrido los impactos de los proyectos extractivos. Necesitamos un tratado que ponga límites claros cuando la actividad empresarial amenaza la vida la. dignidad y la madre tierra. E instamos al estado de Guatemala. A asumir un papel fundamental con responsabilidad en estas negociaciones en favor de los derechos humanos en defensa de la vida el territorio y nuestros bienes comunes naturales. Para avanzar hacia El buen vivir de los pueblos. La mina marlin en San Marcos El proyecto minero fénix en El story Zaval y El caso de y sis en huevo ten huehuetenango. Son algunos que han provocado contaminaciones del agua El aire y El suelo y han generado graves conflictos socio ambientales donde las comunidades han denunciado que los proyectos fueran autorizados. fueran autorizados y desarrollados sin haber obtenido su consentimiento libre previo e informado. Es por ello que es necesario que este tratado se convierta en una herramienta que cambie la realidad de las personas que están en los. territorios. Para lograr esa esa tarea proponemos cinco metas que debe lograr. Que sea primero un instrumento que cierre las brechas que hoy permiten que los abusos queden impunes segundo debe establecer obligaciones claras y exigibles para las empresas y sus cadenas de suministros garantizando El acceso efectivo a la justicia y a la reparación. Incluso cuando una empresa tiene su matriz en un país y el impacto. ocurre en otro. Tercero un instrumento que ponga los derechos humanos por encima de los intereses económicos que reconozca los derechos de los pueblos indígenas como el derecho a la participación a la consulta de. acuerdo con los estándares internacionales. 4.º debe proteger especialmente a quienes defienden los derechos humanos y El medio ambiente. 5.º debe abordar los impactos ambientales y climáticos de desde una perspectiva de derechos humanos como indicó la corte internacional de justicia. En ese contexto valoramos la propuesta del presidente relator de mantener la prevención y El acceso a la justicia y. a las vías de recursos como objetivos fundamentales del instrumento. Incluida la atención prestada al género la edad los niños la discapacidad y las víctimas en la declaración de objetivos. Al mismo tiempo animamos a que se refuerce aún más la disposición relativa a los objetivos anteriormente mencionados. Quisiera resaltar. Muy especialmente dos aspectos específicos en primer lugar El. instrumento debería establecer claramente una regulación estatal sólida de las actividades empresariales a lo largo de todas las cadenas de valor global. En segundo lugar creemos que la referencia a mitigar. Las violaciones de los derechos humanos como objetivo debería sustituir sustituirse por poner fin a por lo tanto, abogamos por una formulación que sitúe firmemente en el centro la prevención y el acceso a las vías de recurso al tiempo que garantice una cobertura integral en todas las cadenas de valor global muchas gracias.


Presidente-Relator [1:59:21]:

Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra a la Organización Internacional de Empleadores.


IOE [1:59:34]:

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


DKA Austria [2:01:33]:

I speak on behalf

Of DKA Austria.

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


Presidente-Relator [2:04:26]:

Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra a International Trade Union Confederation.


ITUC [2:04:35]:

I speak on behalf of the global labour movement. With respect to proposal 19, we welcome the Chester New Language in Article two B and two C aimed at improving the conformity with the language and the spirit of resolution 26 slash nine. Indeed, we believe that the chester language father embeds the pro taken in the updated draft of balancing the focus on cross border activities of business enterprises, while also applying its principal provision to other business enterprises that do not operate across border. The statement of purpose therefore, and ensure that the LBI is clearly focused towards addressing business activities of transnational character, which is where the main normative gaps in international human rights law lie. I think. you chair.


Presidente-Relator [2:05:29]:

Muchas gracias cedo la palabra a Institute for Policy Studies.


Institute for Policy Studies [2:05:37]:

Chair, state delegates. I'm Juliana from the Transnational Institute, member of the Global Campaign, speaking on behalf of the Institute for Policy Studies. We welcome the opportunity to address this working group on a statement of purpose. recalling that the objective of this article is precisely to tell courts and state parties what this instrument is for so they can effectively interpret and apply every obligation enshrined in. it and in this task we're very fortunate Mr. Chair because the purpose of the future instrument has already been written and agreed upon. Resolution 269 mandates us to quote, regulate in international human rights law the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises of a transnational character, end quote. Yet, it is disheartening to return here year after year after year, having to defend the most crucial elements mandated by resolution 269 the scope and the human rights character. of the future treaty. We recall states delegates that this working group exists because of the gap, or better yet, because of the wide legal void in international law that allows for transnational corporations to escape accountability by spreading their value chains across many jurisdictions and legal forms. States obligations to respect, protect, and fulfil human rights already exist. and they ground the many rulings against local subsidiaries who have committed human rights violations within the context of transnational business operations. The future treaty cannot be an instrument to only reaffirm state obligations. As Brazil and Palestine have highlighted, private actors obligations also exist in international human rights law, and they have been widely recognized at least since the 60s. It is surprising to see some delegations arguing otherwise. The problem is accountability for parent and controlling companies, those reaping most of the profits, those who allow, encourage, demand, or impose the practices that result in human rights violations within their value chains, those corporations that still today 2026 still hide behind the corporate fail to escape accountability. To reach parent company and controlling and controlling companies those hiding behind these this corporate veil is the purpose of the future instrument, which is which must therefore be clearly reaffirmed in Article two, two, as proposed by Egypt, Colombia, and Iran in two a bis which we fully support. Now on the human rights character of the future treaty. Binding instruments must establish obligations not responsibilities. To fulfil the purpose of this working group, we need to establish specific obligations for transnational corporations so that violations of the rights and obligations enshrined in the future treaty and in other human rights element instruments can result in liability and allow for effective remedy. In two b, therefore, responsibilities should read obligations as proposed by Colombia in Egypt, and which was the actual wording of 2.1 b in the third revised draft. Finally, we asked the delegates here present, how could we mitigate a human rights violation? To say human rights violations can be mitigated is to say to the more than 60 delegates from 24 different countries, the members of the global campaign present in this room today, many of them directly affected by transnational corporate power and impunity, that this working group is comfortable with a certain level of violation of their rights. What kind of violations are we willing to tolerate in the name of private profits? For the treaty to be a human rights instrument, we need to talk about duty of vigilance, of vigilance duty of care, joint and several liability, not due diligence. We need to talk about violations, not abuses, not impact. And while risks may be mitigated in certain, circumstances, human rights violations must be prevented, seized and fully repaired, because a harm to human dignity can never be mitigated. We therefore ask that mitigate be deleted from QE, as proposed by Egypt and Brazil. Mr. Chair state delegates that the UNGPs say business enterprises do not have obligations as referred in the rationale behind the chair's proposals for article two. should not be an obstacle for this group to establish specific obligations for TNCs. To the contrary, this affirmation should be a reminder of the different purposes of the process that this working group is mandated to. fulfill. UNGPs are a voluntary guide to corporate conduct, not a human rights instrument. So instead of being bound, but what was never intended to be binding, we invite this working group to uphold the human rights character of this process. And this is why, for the global campaign, when we hear that the text of the future treaty is moving away from the UNGPs, we know we're moving in the right direction. Thank you.


Presidente-Relator [2:11:04]:

Muchas gracias cedo la palabra a ESCR Net.


ESCRNET · Representante [2:11:17]:

Intervengo en nombre de la red nacional por los derechos económicos, sociales y culturales rede desk y del movimiento internacional de personas afectadas por las represas, los derechos socioambientales y la crise climática. queremos expresar nuestra solidaridad con las y los jóvenes de Europa por las protestas que han tenido lugar en las últimas semanas. Sus reivindicaciones son legítimas. Luchar por viviendas, la educación y la asistencia sanitaria es defender los derechos humanos fundamentales. Denunciamos a la creciente privatizacion de los servicios públicos, en Europa y fuera de ella. Esto forma parte de un modelo económico capitalista vigente que antepone los beneficios empresariales a los derechos de las personas. Ahora, más que nunca, necesitamos impulsionar un tratado sólido, con el claro objetivo de garantizar la rendición de cuentas de las empresas transnacionales para que dejen de socavar los derechos de las personas. Senhor presidente, delegados, y los delegados de los estados. La forma de garantizar la rendición de cuentas de las empresas transnacionales sería establecer obligaciones directas para estas empresas de sociedad. No mencionar esto en el objetivo del tratado resultará prejudicial para el proceso. Creemos que esta será la forma de disuadir la existência de um padrão sistemático de violações repetidas em nossos derechos humanos. através de megaproyectos megaproyectos trans transforma eh megaproyectos. Por ejemplo de energías renovables y minerias. Las consequences de estos proyectos agravan la y a aslea graves dificuldades sociales y crean situaciones de pobreza e desintegración social, familiar individual. Las violaciones cometidas por las empresas no son incidentes aislados. Y el hecho de que no se les ponga fin, demuestra que las medidas de diligencias debidas no responde a las necesidades específicas de las poblaciones afectadas. Confiar en medidas voluntárias, e y en la buena voluntad de las empresas transnacionales, sólo sirve para poner de manifiesto la cara moderna de colonialismo corporativo contra los pueblos del mundo. Redesc propone que el objetivo de tratado tal y como se estabelece en el artículo 12, diga lo seguinte cada estado parte velará porque su marco jurídico y normativo nacional estabeleza haga cumplir obrigações efectivas de em mantería de derechos humanos para las empresas lo âmbito de aplicação del presente instrumento, incluida las obrigações, de de respeitar los derechos humanos internacionalmente reconocidos, e prevenir e hacer frente a los abusos, violações de direitos humanos e proporcionar e cooperar em provisión de recursos. efectivos, cuantos se beneficien de dichos abusos, violaciones, los causas y contribuyen a ellos. No mencionar en el tratado las obrigações jurídicas diretas de las empresas transnacionales supondrían una gran perdida para seguir desarrollando y reforzando el marco jurídico sobre la responsabilidad empresarial. Gracias.


Presidente-Relator [2:14:41]:

Muchas gracias. Cedo la palabra Fian Internacional.


FIAN [2:14:53]:

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


Presidente-Relator [2:17:34]:

Muchas gracias fue el último orador de la lista distinguidos delegados, distinguidos participantes corresponde tratar la la propuesta relativa al artículo 3 sobre ámbito de aplicación, pero en vista de lo avanzado de la obra y a fin de centrar, centrarnos am en la consideración de este e de las propuestas con relación a este e artículo que es central al instrumento jurídicamente vinculante. propongo que comencemos el intercambio el día de mañana a las diez. Con esto entonces concluimos la sesión de esta tarde. Declaro cerrada la 6.ª reunión del 12.º periodo de sesiones del grupo de trabajo intergubernamental de composición abierta sobre las empresas transnacionales. y otras empresas con respecto a los derechos humanos. Muchas gracias a todos por sus contribuciones. Se levanta la sesión.