A/HRC/31/50 43. One panellist noted that that limiting the scope of a treaty simply to cover certain human rights would run counter to the principles of human rights and international law. Moreover, the panellist noted that international financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, could also be covered by the scope of the instrument and that it would be consistent with international law. The panellist noted that all States had obligations to provide remedies for victims, in particular vulnerable people. 44. Another expert noted that all entities yielding power should be covered by the binding instrument, but explained that it was not a question of size but of the impact that their activities have upon human rights. Another panellist agreed that, while businesses could violate human rights, a treaty should consider the activities of corporations and that it should strongly focus on transnational corporations. 45. One panellist noted the positive impacts that investments can have if done appropriately and that human rights must be considered part of the development and not to be seen as in opposition to it. 46. Some delegations emphasized that, owing to the principles of universality, indivisibility and interdependence, all human rights should be included in a future instrument. Likewise, some panellists stressed that the process must strengthen the universality of human rights. Some panellists noted that an international binding instrument would benefit businesses as it would provide a set of minimum international standards for all transnational corporations, levelling the international playing field of their operations. 47. Furthermore, a number of participants considered that the instrument should include the principle of direct responsibility of transnational corporations. It was also stated that the right to legal defence and effective redress should be included as fundamental rights. 48. The panellists agreed that an international binding instrument should not backslide from what had been achieved in the Guiding Principles, and that it should be of common interest, particularly for the victims. 49. The panellists observed that the adoption of national action plans could serve as a tool for States to adapt their domestic legislation to the future legally binding instrument, and that national action plans should therefore be encouraged. One panellist considered that the instrument must set out the obligations of States with respect to corporations’ conduct. Another panellist argued that the instrument should integrate the principles of capacitybuilding, transparency and good governance. 50. Several States considered that Guiding Principles were a starting point and a reference for the work of the working group. Some States commented that long-term investments of transnational corporations could contribute to poverty alleviation and development, and that the instrument should encourage appropriate and human rights responsible corporate investments. One State noted that the current approach on corporate social responsibility did not have legal weight and therefore could not be upheld for the protection of human rights in front of a court. In addition, it noted that national action plans were neither integrated nor uniform, and that companies could jump from one jurisdiction to another. 51. Some States stressed that an international legally binding instrument should consolidate the current norms in international law, and one State considered that some principles could also be brought from other fields of law, for example, the reversal of the burden of proof, polluter-pays rules and the precautionary principle. Likewise, one delegation observed that such instrument must also consider the specificities of each country, including its legal system, social norms, traditions, culture, history and stage of development. 10