A/HRC/37/67 impact assessments by an independent entity, reference to conflict areas and the protection of human rights defenders, as well as gender-specific provisions that took into account the particular needs of women human rights defenders. 71. Concerning the inclusion of a section on “obligations of transnational corporations and other business enterprises”, some delegations asked for information on the legal basis for imposing international human rights obligations on companies. Additionally, questions were raised as to how that would work in practice and whether that would be appropriate in the absence of a structure capable of law enforcement. Other delegations found it appropriate to impose international obligations on companies and referenced several treaties establishing obligations on legal entities. In their view, such obligations were necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the instrument. 72. Delegations suggested that additional obligations should be imposed on companies, including to mandate human rights due diligence and reporting; ensure free, prior and informed consent when operations could adversely affect communities; prevent corporate capture; oblige companies to pay taxes in countries they operated in; and positively promote human rights. An NGO highlighted the importance of establishing a general obligation on transnational corporations and other associated actors, such as financial institutions, to disclose the object and volume of their transactions, and to prohibit channelling their operations through tax havens. 73. With respect to the section on obligations of international organizations, it was questioned whether that provision belonged elsewhere since it appeared to concern an obligation of States and not international organizations as such. To the extent that the provision did create obligations for international organizations, some delegations expressed their reservation in making limitations on bodies created by different instruments with different mandates. D. Panel IV. Preventive measures 74. The first panellist noted an existing accountability gap for victims and argued that the instrument should oblige States to require effective and binding due diligence processes from all companies covering the complete life cycle of a product, including its disposal. He noted that several provisions in the section on preventive measures did not seem directly relevant to prevention and suggested moving them to a more appropriate section. 75. The second panellist argued that preventive measures in the treaty should focus on two components: (a) preventing acts by transnational corporations that adversely affected human rights, and (b) preventing corporate capture. Regarding corporate capture, the panellist proposed that States should ensure transparency and disclosure of documents and contracts with transnational corporations. Additionally, States should prohibit political contributions from transnational corporations and forbid outsourcing of security services to companies. 76. The third panellist recommended ways to strengthen that section, such as by including references to due diligence obligations relating to development institutions, the use of independent impact assessments, the coverage of labour and environmental rights, the inclusion of a gender perspective, the use of ex ante and ex post impact assessments, and the inclusion of the free, prior and informed consent principle. 77. Delegations and NGOs highlighted the importance of prevention and welcomed a dedicated section in the document. It was questioned whether, conceptually speaking, the elements in that section should be linked with the one on obligations as the provisions addressed the obligations of States and companies. Some sought more precision in the wording of the provisions, wanting to know whether the terms “adequate” or “necessary measures” took proper account of differing capacities among States. One business 13