A/HRC/37/67 of transnational corporations, in order to avoid confusion and loopholes that transnational corporations could use to their advantage. 62. Some delegations emphasized the importance of including regulations of business activities in conflict and post-conflict areas as businesses could exploit those situations for natural resources. C. Panel III. General obligations 63. The first panellist called for the treaty to clarify that States must regulate the extraterritorial actions of companies domiciled within their jurisdiction, for instance by ensuring that companies disclosed information about their transnational operations. With respect to international organizations, the panellist noted that those organizations had a duty to respect human rights and States must ensure that those organizations complied. 64. The second panellist did not support the content of the elements document and voiced concern about imposing international law obligations on companies, as that could lead to States delegating their duties to the private sector, undermining the full protection of human rights. Furthermore, generally imposing such duties was impractical given the number and diversity of the actors involved. 65. The third panellist decided to focus his remarks on gaps in the elements document. With respect to the obligations of States, he regretted that concepts of corporate law, such as separate legal personality, were absent, noting that a successful instrument must address those issues. Furthermore, he suggested that the instrument should clarify what constituted an actionable violation if placing binding obligations on corporations. 66. The fourth panellist emphasized workers’ support of the working group and noted that labour rights must be included. She noted that the instrument should oblige companies to exercise due diligence and provide remedies. While acknowledging that some provisions in the elements document were vague, more detail could be developed during the negotiation process. 67. While many delegations supported the proposed elements under “general obligations”, some noted the need to continue with negotiations on certain specific provisions, as provisions of a legally binding instrument must be worded clearly if legal consequences would attach. 68. Regarding the provisions on “State obligations”, it was noted that many elements seemed to restate existing obligations and their added value was questioned. There was concern that the provisions requiring States to adapt national legislation and impose restrictions on public procurement contracts interfered with the internal affairs of States, as it should be up to each State to determine how to implement its treaty obligations. Additionally, there were calls for more specificity in the provisions regarding reporting and disclosure requirements, as well as the provision requiring States to ensure that human rights be considered in their contractual engagements. 69. Other delegations commended the drafting of the section, specifically voicing support for the recognition that States had the primary duty to protect human rights and take measures to prevent, investigate, punish and redress violations to ensure that companies respected human rights throughout their activities. Some welcomed the provision requiring States to ensure that companies conducted human rights and environmental impact assessments. However, one delegation expressed that it was beyond the working group’s mandate to discuss environmental impact assessments. 70. Throughout the discussion, there were several suggestions for additional elements, including a reference to international cooperation and mutual legal assistance, clarification as to extraterritorial obligations, regulation of State-owned companies, mandatory gender 12