A/HRC/34/47 home States had duties in relation to the extraterritorial operations of transnational corporations and that such duties did not infringe on host States’ sovereignty. 45. Another delegation advocated for a binding instrument to address the issue of State complicity, pointing out that the corrupting influence of corporations might take many forms, including lobbies and unlimited resources. In the State represented by the delegation, human rights were an important pillar of domestic and foreign policies and enshrined in the Constitution, which had enabled the judicial system to hand down judgments finding corporations responsible for human rights violations. However there had been enforcement challenges following the closure or relocation of corporate operations. The delegation referred to its Government’s guidelines on good practices for domestic companies operating abroad. 46. Some delegations challenged the value of investor-State dispute settlement proceedings, describing how unfair arbitration processes could lead to major economic costs for States. Victims of human rights violations generally did not have access to arbitration, even in local courts, and non-compliance with national rulings was frequent. Other questions raised included how to reconcile State sovereignty with the notion of extraterritorial and universal jurisdiction, and how to guarantee the implementation of decisions adopted by host States regarding violations of human rights by transnational corporations when the latter fled the jurisdiction. 47. NGOs conveyed experiences of assisting victims and highlighted the multiple procedural and legal obstacles, including when holding parent companies accountable for subsidiaries’ abuses. A binding instrument should overcome such obstacles, with the Maastricht Principles providing key elements for defining extraterritorial scope. 48. Reference was made to national initiatives by which States sought to impose obligations of corporate human rights due diligence, including in relation to operations abroad, and the reversal of the burden of proof in investigating complaints of corporate abuse. However, it was reported that those initiatives faced strong resistance from the business community. 49. Calls were made for the creation of a body to receive and investigate complaints submitted by affected communities or their representatives. 50. It was proposed that the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters should form the basis for participation, access to justice and remedy provisions in a binding instrument. A reference was also made to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, which had set out extraterritorial obligations with regard to discrimination against women, extending to acts of national corporations operating extraterritorially. 51. One panellist highlighted the need to provide the most vulnerable groups with legal tools to claim their rights, including through capacity-building in host countries. Cooperation between States and judicial bodies was deemed as essential to ensure the implementation of decisions. 52. One panellist did not share the view that trade agreements could result in adverse human rights impacts and that all investment arbitration tribunals aligned with the interests of investors. A State could denounce and withdraw from an investment treaty at any time. On the question of how power could be rebalanced vis-à-vis corporations, there were many positive initiatives, for example, the G7 CONNEX Initiative, as well as work carried out by UNCTAD. Additionally, the panellist warned that the proposed reversal of the burden of proof would not be in line with due process. 10