A/HRC/31/50 proposed that any treaty should take a comprehensive jurisdictional approach and an evidence- and reality-based approach. It was also mentioned that cooperation with regard to international legal aid should be fostered, in the form of establishing a fund to provide victims with adequate legal representation. 103. Some delegations stressed that access to justice was one of the fundamental aspects for States and at the same time it was one of the clear gaps in cases of impunity for human rights violations perpetrated by corporations. One delegate described the present system of domestic law remedies as patchy, unpredictable and ineffective. Another delegate recalled the need for a treaty to establish mechanisms to allow natural persons whose human rights had been violated to have binding redress. Several delegates suggested that a convergence of approaches might be helpful and called for collaboration, capacity-building and mutual assistance on due diligence investigations, administration of justice and enforcement of judgements. Likewise, variations between the economic and development conditions of States, their histories and cultural characteristics must be taken into account. While the duty of States to protect human rights was universally accepted, it should be complemented by a comprehensive and balanced manner of addressing the obligations of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights. 104. Several delegates underlined the need for a future instrument to be accompanied by a robust monitoring and enforcement mechanism for legal and judicial redress, as well as rules for applying sanctions in order to avoid impunity. If such a mechanism was established, it must provide adequate legal representation for victims. Numerous delegates submitted that victims must be at the centre of the discussions and the instrument should include provisions to ensure access to justice by affected communities in home and host States. 105. Some NGOs advocated for a treaty that provided access to justice and effective remedy mechanisms, including administrative, non-judicial and judicial remedies. The lack of remedy mechanisms in the home State of the corporation was recognized as a barrier for access to justice, thus the principle of complementarity between the home and the host State jurisdiction should be included. A group of NGOs highlighted the need for a treaty to address legal and logistical barriers for access to justice, including jurisdictional limitations, corporate veil, impediments to disclosure of documents, restrictions of prescription, legal costs and limitation of class actions, among other factors. Others called for effective bodies of enforcement, such as a committee for compliance oversight or a public centre for control of transnational corporations. Finally, another group of NGOs called for a world court or tribunal that could receive claims, adjudicate and enforce judgements, and could operate in complementarity with national and regional instruments. V. Recommendations of the Chair-Rapporteur and conclusions of the working group A. Recommendations of the Chair-Rapporteur 106. Following the discussions held during the first session of the working group, and acknowledging the different views and suggestions on the way forward, the Chair-Rapporteur makes the following recommendations: (a) A second session of the working group should be held in 2016 according to the mandate of the working group established in Human Rights Council resolution 26/9; 20