A/HRC/17/32 goods regulation) or where a ban has been imposed by a sourcing country or the Security Council • Asset freeze, detention or arrest warrants issued for key individuals suspected in connection with international crimes • The Security Council might list a business enterprise or senior executives for support to parties to the conflict (which would require a Member State to put a name forward for listing) • Law enforcement may investigate/indict on international crimes, both senior managers and the business enterprise itself • Law enforcement may investigate/indict a chief executive officer or a business enterprise for money laundering, for example, the “proceeds of crime” provisions • States should consider multilateral approaches to prevent and address businessrelated gross human rights abuses and support effective collective initiatives IV. Conclusions: first and next steps? 19. Some States have already begun to implement a number of the steps laid out above aimed at strengthening the advisory role of the State where businesses are involved in conflict-affected areas. These would appear to be logical first steps in the development of public policy options for the States concerned about these issues. 20. States should also have to consider how to take advantage of the variety of options available to them to respond to businesses that disregard good practices. One of the first steps is defining what risks or activities should prompt a State response and what responses would be appropriate and necessary. 21. Such a standard setting exercise would be greatly supported by multilateral agreement on risks and prohibited activities with respect to business in conflict or other high-risk situations. States are more inclined to adopt policies that set standards that do not put their own businesses at an unfair disadvantage, indicating that multilateral standard-setting on this issue may be a necessary part of ensuring that States move forward in the fulfilment of the State duty to protect human rights. 7