A/HRC/37/67 instrument. He further suggested that the provision discussing due diligence procedures should be placed in a different section. 86. Delegations signalled their approval for including a section on legal liability, although some suggested that that section should be clearer and more concise. Some recognized legal liability could also encompass natural persons. Most delegations and NGOs agreed that criminal, civil and administrative liability should attach to legal entities, and some delegations shared national laws that imposed those types of liability on companies. It was noted that the different types of liability were complementary; however, some delegations were concerned at the lack of differentiation among them. In their view, differentiated language was needed to reflect whether a provision referred to criminal, civil or administrative liability. Furthermore, it was noted that some legal systems did not allow for the imposition of criminal liability on legal entities; thus, provisions requiring such liability would be inappropriate. States should have the flexibility to choose how best to incorporate the treaty into national law. Concerns were also raised about the appropriateness of imposing international obligations on legal entities. 87. Some delegations called for greater detail and clear, minimum standards regarding the measures States must take to establish the different forms of legal liability in their jurisdictions. Others appreciated the flexibility provided for in the elements, allowing States to adopt their own legal measures in accordance with their national systems. 88. It was noted that the two provisions dealing with the commission and attempt of criminal offences were unnecessary given the general provision in the section covering civil, criminal and administrative offences. It was also questioned why the term “international applicable human rights instruments” was used in those sections when other sections used different terminology. 89. Clarification was sought as to the meaning of the provision establishing civil liability for companies for participating in the planning, preparation, direction of or benefit from human rights violations caused by other companies, with one delegation suggesting that that should cover indirect benefits as well. Similarly, some delegations called for more precision as to the contours of the provisions dealing with immunities, State responsibility for the actions of companies under their control, and complicity. Regarding the issue of complicity, it was queried whether States would automatically become responsible for any harm committed by a company. 90. One delegation also considered that the provision promoting decent work in supply chains fell outside the scope of the mandate given by resolution 26/9. 91. It was suggested that that language should be added to the section to address parent company liability. Additionally, an NGO suggested that international crimes should be included in the section. F. Panel VI. Access to justice, effective remedy and guarantees of nonrepetition 92. The first panellist noted that a binding instrument must build on and complement existing international standards, such as the Guiding Principles. The remedy process should be sensitive to the experiences of different groups of rights-holders, requiring consideration of the gender dimension and preventing victimization of rights-holders and human rights defenders seeking remedies. Furthermore, rights-holders must be able to seek, obtain and enforce different types of remedies. 93. The second panellist suggested strengthening the provision on legal aid by establishing an online resource that would provide information to victims, such as the relevant law and the applicable burden of proof, and would link victims to NGOs and legal 15