A/HRC/37/67 treatment, it was feared that including a list of some groups could indicate the exclusion of others. Others requested that the language be altered to reflect a more positive, empowering tone. 47. One delegation noted that the reference to the duty of States to prepare human rights impact assessments was inappropriate in that section since that was not a “principle”. The same delegation also expressed concern about the provision recognizing the responsibility of States for private acts since it believed it had been worded too generally and failed to recognize that such responsibility only arose in certain circumstances. 48. Several elements under the subsection on “purpose” also received attention. Some delegations approved a reference to the civil, administrative and criminal liability of business. One delegation did not agree since many States’ legal systems did not criminally punish legal entities, and thought that States should have discretion as to how to enforce the treaty. 49. Delegations and NGOs welcomed the reaffirmation that States’ human rights obligations extended beyond territorial borders, with some requesting that that be elaborated in the instrument. One regional organization questioned whether that provision conflicted with one in the preamble reaffirming the sovereign equality and territorial integrity of States, including in relation to progress in the area of the responsibility to protect. A business organization expressed concern about the inclusion of the term “promotion”, saying that, while companies should respect human rights, they should not have an international obligation to “promote” human rights. 50. Regarding the objectives of the instrument, delegations welcomed the reference to international cooperation and mutual legal assistance, noting its importance for the effective implementation of the instrument. B. Panel II. Scope of application 51. The first panellist noted that the elements document referred to the transnational activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises, regardless of the mode of creation, control, ownership, size or structure. That indicated an inclusive approach in line with the Guiding Principles and rightly focused on activities rather than their corporate ownership. Additionally, she supported the scope of application to cover all internationally recognized human rights. 52. The second panellist also expressed support for extending the scope of application to all internationally recognized human rights, reflecting their universality, indivisibility and interdependence. The panellist questioned restricting the elements to acts of a transnational character since, from the victim’s perspective, it was irrelevant whether an act was national or transnational. Additionally, she suggested that the instrument apply to regional organizations beyond economic integration organizations. 53. The third panellist emphasized that the working group was acting under a Council mandate; thus, human rights must prevail, not investment and trade, and urged more focus on human rights defenders. The panellist noted that a legally binding instrument should address gaps in voluntary initiatives and explore direct obligations on business. 54. With respect to the rights covered by a binding instrument, most delegations agreed that all internationally recognized human rights should be included. Some delegations mentioned specific rights, such as the right to development, the right to property and the right to permanent sovereignty over natural resources. It was suggested that the instrument should also ensure protection of nationally recognized rights. Another delegation suggested that the wording of that provision in the elements document was overbroad by including 10