A/HRC/31/50 “transnational corporations” could be through jurisprudence, delegation to national legislation or an intermediate referral system. Finally, the panellist stated that there were a number of precedents in other areas of law that address the control of subsidiaries and indirect control, for example, tax law, commercial law and intellectual property law. 58. Some States pointed out that the nature of the operations of transnational enterprises, their size and their corporate structure had an impact on human rights. Other States stressed that the instrument should focus mainly on gaps to address human rights impacts of transnational operations, as there was no clear definition of the term “transnational corporations”. 59. Several States highlighted that the instrument should focus on transnational corporations because they can evade responsibilities for the extraterritoriality dimensions of their operations. Another State noted that there had been no significant discussions over the past decade regarding international liability for such corporations and that victims of their activities were already waiting for redress. It also warned against having a fixed definition because of the risk that a lack of agreement on definitions would entail. Likewise, it pointed out that it was possible to reach common understanding and mentioned examples of different instruments that did not use specific definitions when defining terms such as investment. 60. Several NGOs stressed the need for a treaty to focus on transnational corporations because there was a clear gap with respect to their operations in international human rights law. 61. Some NGOs argued that all enterprises were susceptible of committing human rights violations and that all victims needed protection and remedy regardless of the nature of the enterprise committing the abuse, so a treaty must therefore cover all business enterprises. They called for a treaty to address all businesses while focusing on the particular challenges posed by transnational corporations. D. Panel IV. Human rights to be covered under the instrument with respect to activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises 62. Several participants noted that the activities of transnational corporations could affect a wide array of human rights. They argued that there was no definition of grave violations of human rights in international law. Therefore it would not be accurate to limit a treaty to gross human rights violations, as it would signal that other violations are tolerated or considered less serious. They also stressed that current rules were not sufficient and that there was a need for an international response with extraterritorial competences. Some States and panellists noted that all human rights were universal, indivisible and interdependent as recognized in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. One panellist highlighted that human rights violations had a special dimension linked to poverty, the rights of the child and gender. 63. Several panellists, delegations and NGOs noted that all human rights should be included in the binding instrument, since transnational activities had an impact on a wide range of stakeholders, including the communities in which they operate. They argued for the need to use an adequate methodology to identify corporate responsibility, such as a test to identify the responsibility of a corporation when it violates a right or directly benefits from the abuse of the right, and to identify the nature of the right and what it entails. From this point of view, the emphasis relies on the victim’s rights, not on the agent of the conduct. 12