A/HRC/37/67 120. Several delegations and NGOs welcomed the inclusion of that section and the creation of mechanisms to promote, implement and monitor a future instrument. Many called for the ability of victims to directly access those mechanisms, and an additional provision to protect against retaliation by those who engaged those mechanisms was mentioned. Some argued that, without enforcement mechanisms, the instrument would not be properly implemented. Other delegations questioned the usefulness of creating a new mechanism, arguing that the focus should be on strengthening existing institutions. One delegation reiterated that States had the prerogative to decide on how to enforce its treaty commitments. It was also noted that there should be more reliance on national action plans in order to bring the treaty to the national level. One delegation asked how the instrument could strengthen non-judicial mechanisms and what the role of national human rights institutions could be in that regard. 121. Several delegations approved of the establishment of an international judicial mechanism to hear complaints regarding violations by transnational corporations, including through the establishment of special chambers in already existing regional courts, noting that victims and certain States had been calling for the creation of such institutions for some time. However, questions were raised as to whether an international court could be effective or delay negotiations for years, and there were concerns regarding budgetary and political issues involved with establishing a court. A question was asked whether that referred to past deliberations over the International Criminal Court, whether it was an appeal to broaden the jurisdiction of the Court and whether the proposal was feasible. 122. Delegations expressed support for the creation of an international committee to monitor the treaty, and it was noted that the creation of a committee would not preclude the creation of other institutions or the involvement of national human rights institutions and ombudspersons. Some delegations approved of the proposed functions of that committee in the elements, including examining periodical reports and individual and collective communications. It was suggested that that body should consider victims as its centre of attention, and that it could foster international cooperation, technical assistance and share best practices. An expectation for a draft text of the treaty by the Chair-Rapporteur in the next session was highlighted. 123. Additionally, some delegations proposed the establishment of a non-judicial, peer review mechanism, and some NGOs suggested creating a monitoring centre that could be jointly run by States and civil society. J. Panel X. General provisions 124. One NGO welcomed a provision in the section on general provisions regarding the primacy of a future instrument over other obligations from trade and investment legal regimes. It also stressed the importance of allowing for the participation of civil society and affected communities. K. Panel. Victims’ voices 125. Five panellists provided introductory remarks, commenting on a range of issues, including violations of indigenous peoples’ rights, abusive practices in drug patenting and pricing, harm caused by agricultural projects, impunity relating to toxic pollution, development projects displacing communities and the role of international financial institutions in supporting harmful practices. 126. The panellists’ presentations were followed by interventions from delegations and NGOs, highlighting specific cases of abuse and State failure to implement existing human rights obligations. Some delegations defended the adoption of a balanced, victim-centred 20