A/HRC/41/49 that capacity-building, policy coherence and a strengthening of existing grievance mechanisms were essential measures for moving towards human rights-compliant development projects. Noteworthy examples included efforts by the Government of Finland to strengthen coherence across all five of its public finance instruments with a view to evolving their own implementation of human rights due diligence collectively and in coordination, as well as an evaluation done for the Government of Norway on integrating the Guiding Principles in the context of development cooperation. Another type of initiative presented was the Alliance for Torture-Free Trade, an initiative of Argentina, Mongolia and the European Union aiming to end the trade in goods used for capital punishment and torture.7 38. A panel on the role of State-owned enterprises provided participants with examples of current practices from different regions and sectors, including Sweden, Norway and the Republic of Korea, where the integration of the Guiding Principles into their due diligence processes has already begun. Despite the growing awareness regarding the important role of State-owned enterprises, action by Governments in that area is still lagging in many regions and sectors. It was noted that the OECD Due Diligence Guidance, together with the Guiding Principles, provided all the necessary clarity on what needed to be done, but most Governments and State-owned enterprises were not leading by example as they should. For example, an OECD study of State-owned enterprises in nine Asian countries 8 showed a range of practices in relation to human rights, reflecting differing national legislative policies and market forces. As an example demonstrating the potential for leadership by State-owned enterprises, it was noted that 49 per cent of the members of the boards of Swedish State-owned enterprises were women, compared with 9 per cent in the private sector. 39. Another Forum agenda item linked to the broad issue of improving policy coherence was the question of the compatibility of investment treaties with human rights, and the extent to which such treaties can and should address human rights matters. Speakers highlighted the increasing calls for a balancing of rights and obligations between States and investors in the investment treaty regime, which was part of a wider debate. Examples of recent investment treaties that addressed that issue were highlighted, including the Dutch model bilateral investment treaty and the Morocco-Nigeria bilateral investment treaty, which included references to sustainable development, corporate responsibility and the protection of human rights and the environment. C. Realizing access to effective remedy 40. Forum discussions centred on the third pillar of the Guiding Principles, including discussions on the relationship between human rights due diligence and determinations of corporate legal liability under national law, with insights provided by the OHCHR Accountability and Remedy Project.9 A session organized by OHCHR explored the interconnectedness of different grievance mechanisms, with a particular focus on the third phase of the project, which aimed to analyse how non-State-based grievance mechanisms situated within a “regulatory ecosystem” fit within the “family” of grievance mechanisms. 41. With respect to national-level developments, the representative of Belgium announced the drafting of a set of recommendations for an effective domestic remedy and the issuance of a publication10 to inform organizations about how they can comply with their human rights duties and provide compensation for victims and which includes a list of the existing remedy mechanisms. 7 8 9 10 10 See www.torturefreetrade.org/. Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Turkey and Viet Nam. See www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/OHCHRaccountabilityandremedyproject.aspx. See www.developpementdurable.be/sites/default/files/content/en_brochure_droits_de_lhomme _062018.pdf.