A/HRC/31/50 64. One panellist stated that a binding instrument must speak to the reality of poverty and noted that almost all instances of violations happened in impoverished contexts. The panellist argued that corporations should not exacerbate or benefit from sustaining levels of poverty. Finally the panellist argued that gender roles and norms had a discriminatory impact and that the binding instrument must be written from a gender perspective to ensure its effectiveness. 65. A number of States and NGOs reaffirmed that the scope of the instrument should start with and include the core human rights instruments of the United Nations, especially those concerning the rights of vulnerable groups, such as children, indigenous peoples and people with disabilities. In this sense, States, NGOs and panellists signalled that a limitation on the scope of rights would be counterproductive to the objectives of the instrument. 66. A number of States noted that a legally binding instrument must make transnational corporations legally liable for human rights violations and fundamental freedoms and define the role and responsibilities of non-State actors to uphold human rights in their activities. They underlined that such corporations had operated for years under soft law, which had enabled them to violate human rights. One State mentioned that there was a need to strike a balance between individual and collective rights, to uphold the right to development and the right to peace. E. Panel V. Obligations of States to guarantee the respect for human rights by transnational corporations and other business enterprises, including extraterritorial obligation 67. The panellists and some NGOs agreed that there were gaps concerning the extraterritorial obligations of States to respect, protect and fulfil human rights obligations with regard to transnational corporations and other business enterprises, particularly on jurisdiction. Some panellists agreed that States should be responsible for indirect human rights abuses or for failing to act to curb private actions that violate human rights obligations. 68. Some panellists also noted that due diligence obligations entail States’ extraterritorial obligations with respect to their transnational corporations operating abroad. Some panellists recommended abolishing forum non conveniens in order to ensure accountability for such corporations. Some panellists and several NGOs mentioned the need to ensure an adequate forum to address claims by victims and provide access to justice and redress. 69. One panellist noted that national legislation and jurisdiction were not enough to address human rights abuses by transnational corporations, and that provisions of international law need to deal with the issue in addition to strengthening domestic law. States should establish a stable and predictable legal framework through well-defined laws to promote the enjoyment of human rights, including awareness-raising and dissemination in the corporate world. One panellist argued that extraterritoriality should be applied by way of ensuring that violations committed by such corporations are dealt with pursuant to the law of the country in which they are based and operate. 70. One panellist noted that there were existing human rights obligations for States in the business realm within the treaty bodies and Guiding Principles, but that gaps existed and needed to be addressed through international cooperation. In particular, victims of human rights abuses should be able to bring cases in the home State of transnational corporations. The panellist considered that discussions should include whether the instrument would outline remedies available if States did not act on obligations, or whether it would address jurisdiction and define liability of corporations, or both. Likewise, a 13