A/HRC/34/47 behaviour in relation to issues such as workers’ health and safety. Some countries already had provisions for extraterritorial jurisdiction in place for certain issues. 59. Delegations also noted that there was frequently a lack of cooperation between home and host States, which resulted in victims not having access to justice. A binding instrument must strengthen such cooperation, including by fortifying the legislation of home States to prevent cases from being rejected on jurisdictional grounds. 60. Another element raised by delegations was the establishment of a national mechanism, such as an ombudsman’s office, that could receive complaints and produce reports. 61. Delegations again highlighted the issue of extraterritoriality, noting that several treaty bodies had recognized the obligation of States to prevent third parties from violating human rights. It was suggested that treaty bodies, for example the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Committee on the Rights of the Child, could also be instructive with regard to preventative measures. The need for States to take measures to ensure protection against human rights violations committed by companies abroad, as long as there was a reasonable link between a State and the company’s activities, was stressed. 62. One participant drew attention to a number of successful cases brought against corporate actors worldwide. Corporate actors were found to bear the primary responsibility for violations in approximately half of those cases; in the other half, the State or its agents were found to be the primary actor, with the company being complicit in the State’s action. 63. Parties to a future instrument should cooperate in the enforcement of judgments, thereby addressing some of the challenges faced in terms of access to remedy. One panellist referred to multiple models at the inter-American level and in the arbitration sphere where States had designed instruments for cooperation in that regard. 64. Another panellist stressed that a binding instrument would need to clarify that human rights are truly universal, and the fact that an entity was incorporated in a particular jurisdiction should not be used to avoid liability. There was a need to impose obligations on all actors with capacity to violate human rights. A treaty would also need to include provisions for dealing with jurisdictional challenges that arose in the context of complex investment flows, as well as address evidentiary and procedural obstacles. C. Panel III. Obligations and responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights Subtheme 1. Examples of international instruments addressing obligations and responsibilities of private actors 65. The first panellist presented the example of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which provided a good opportunity to enhance public health and change business models, since it provided the possibility for mutual reinforcement among treaties, holding corporations accountable for products, policies and practices that were harmful, as well as for excluding corporations with conflicts of interest from policymaking at all levels. 66. The second panellist referred to several instruments adopted over the previous four decades that directly addressed the responsibility of business enterprises, such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy of ILO, the United Nations Global Compact and the standard of the International Organization for Standardization providing guidelines for social responsibility (ISO 26000), which were, or were intended to be, in line with the Guiding Principles. 12