A/HRC/31/50 NGOs called for clarifying and affirming the liability of companies, including private military corporations for violations they have committed, even if hired by States or by the United Nations, which should neither shield their liability nor limit access to remedy for victims. 96. Several NGOs noted that a treaty should specify the ways in which transnational corporations and other business enterprises participate in committing human rights abuses, including corporate complicity and parent company responsibility for the offences committed by its subsidiaries, suppliers, licensees and subcontractors. Corporate legal responsibility should not exclude the legal responsibility of company directors or managers. 97. In response to questions, one panellist noted that a treaty could declare in its preamble that human rights enjoy normative supremacy and that such an instrument could include a section requiring States to include human rights labour and environmental standards in bilateral investment treaties. One panellist noted the need for convergence with the outcomes of the OHCHR accountability and remedy project. Another panellist recalled that not all States had ratified all instruments and not all human rights were recognized in all jurisdictions. It was therefore argued that it would be better for a treaty to avoid establishing a uniform standard of corporate responsibility. H. Panel VIII. Building national and international mechanisms for access to remedy, including international judicial cooperation, with respect to human rights violations by transnational corporations and other business enterprises. – OHCHR accountability and remedy project 98. The panel discussion focused on the need for greater access to effective judicial and non-judicial remedy for victims of business-related human rights abuses. It was advocated that there was a need for an international legally binding instrument to complement existing national, regional and international efforts, and that such an instrument should ensure the full scope of remedies and generate clear mechanisms for redress. 99. One panellist provided details of the OHCHR accountability and remedy project, which aims to provide conceptual, normative and practical clarification of key issues and to enhance accountability and access to remedy in cases of business involvement in serious human rights abuses. A key objective would be to use the information collected and evaluated to inform “good practice guidance”. 100. Another panellist focused on the barriers to civil litigation. It was argued that the key legal hurdle in home State cases was jurisdiction and asserting the liability of the parent company. Another hurdle was corporate complicity in human rights violations perpetrated by the State. Procedural hurdles also included access to documents and the availability of class action procedures, but the overriding practical hurdle was the availability of funding for legal representation. 101. One panellist focused on the role and potential of national human rights institutions that are exploring new modalities and protocols for cross-border cooperation to secure remedy for abuses resulting from transnational business activities. It was highlighted that the value added and effectiveness of a binding instrument would depend on its ability to complement existing national, regional and international efforts in the field of business and human rights. 102. Another panellist said that current legal remedies remained elusive and more uniform standards were needed. A treaty was required because, while necessary, national systems for remedy were not sufficient. Likewise, an effective remedy would be one that included not only pecuniary measures, but also injunctive relief and apology. It was 19