A/HRC/37/67 organization expressed concern that the language used reopened an issue that had been resolved in the Guiding Principles, potentially causing confusion and unintended consequences. 78. Many delegations welcomed the provision whereby States required companies to adopt and implement due diligence policies and processes. It was suggested that that provision should ensure that States implement uniform, minimum standards. A delegation and several NGOs thought risk assessments under that provision should address environmental impacts. Concern was expressed that, since those measures were to apply to all the transnational corporations and other business enterprises in a State’s territory or jurisdiction, including subsidiaries and all other related enterprises throughout the supply chain, it would allow States to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction improperly. The ChairRapporteur clarified that the due diligence obligation was meant for the parent company domiciled in a State and that a company was to assess risks throughout its supply chain. 79. Concern was expressed about the provision requiring consultation processes, as one delegation was unsure when that would be required and for what purpose. Other delegations and several NGOs saw value in the provision. Some NGOs suggested that that provision should clearly require the free, prior and informed consent of communities, in particular indigenous communities, when transnational corporation projects threatened adverse human rights impacts. 80. Concerning the provision requiring dissemination of the instrument to everyone in a State’s territory in a language they could understand, some delegations stressed the importance of the populace knowing their rights; however, one delegation felt that that provision interfered with States’ right to determine how to implement the instrument. 81. Some sought clarification on the provisions requiring periodic reporting, with one NGO indicating that that provision would have no teeth without an enforcement mechanism. 82. Some delegations and NGOs suggested adding language in that section aimed at preventing the capture of public institutions by vested business interests, and drew attention to article 5 (3) of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control for guidance. Additionally, there was a call for the section to include enhanced due diligence for businesses operating in the context of armed conflict. E. Panel V. Legal liability 83. The first panellist emphasized that the instrument should cover environmental, health and safety, and workers’ rights, as well as corporate complicity in State violations. Given the difficulties with enforcing criminal liability, the focus should be on civil liability for multinational parent companies. Several practical challenges arose in the civil context, such as victims’ lack of access to information and legal assistance, and those should be addressed to ensure that victims obtained redress. 84. The second panellist noted the comprehensive nature of the provisions on legal liability and recognized how they could be relevant in a variety of legal systems. The panellist described increasing recognition at the international and regional levels of criminal liability of legal entities. He stressed the necessity of criminal liability to serve as a deterrent, better protect individuals and communities’ rights, and provide access to justice for victims. 85. The third panellist appreciated the inclusion of that section, particularly the provision ensuring that civil liability not be made contingent upon a finding of criminal liability. He cautioned against including provisions that mandated specific legal actions, as that could be contrary to certain legal systems and counterproductive to the goals of the 14