A/HRC/34/47 113. Another delegation expressed support for the work of OHCHR and the Working Group on business and human rights, noting that national action plans would be essential for the implementation of the Guiding Principles and emphasizing that civil society and private actors must be involved in the process. 114. Some NGOs noted that national action plans needed to meet certain requirements, needed to ensure dialogue and transparency and needed to be based on the Guiding Principles, adapted to the national context and revised periodically. Some processes related to national action plans had revealed serious faults and were not necessarily delivering the required results. A legally binding treaty might be the best way to ensure appropriate access to justice and to create a common standard. 115. Other NGOs raised the issue of human rights defenders who, when opposing activities of transnational corporations, could face harassment, discrimination and even racism. Indigenous communities faced particular barriers in terms of access to justice. Some NGOs noted that efforts to strengthen the international normative framework were interdependent with efforts to strengthen national and regional frameworks. F. Panel VI. Lessons learned and challenges to access to remedy (selected cases from different sections and regions) 116. The first panellist discussed practical challenges and opportunities that a binding instrument could address. A case study from a State emerging from conflict provided some specificities for addressing the need for effective remedies and redress in a post-conflict country. A binding instrument should codify and develop provisions for access to an effective remedy for wrongful conduct by both States and business enterprises, and would help to redress the inequality between corporate rights and obligations. 117. The second panellist exposed barriers to access to justice. She referred to her experience in supporting communities affected by large-scale projects for natural resource extraction, including challenges related to the lack of the following: transparency on the part of the entities and companies that had interests in the territories; access to information; spaces for participation; and the free prior informed consent of the affected population. She described other challenges related to the licensing and operational stages. A binding instrument would need to prevent violations and provide for mitigation of and remedy for negative impacts, addressing the multidimensional nature and effects of large-scale extractive projects. 118. A third panellist noted the importance of access to remedy, particularly for the most vulnerable and marginalized. She put forward several examples of cases to illustrate the lack of legal standing in the requested courts and the need for a broader definition of legal standing based on contextualized understanding of human rights violations and the possibility for representative, class and group actions. The panellist emphasized the need for a shift in the burden of proof, taking into account that even public prosecution authorities were at times reluctant to investigate cases involving corporate human rights violations. In situations of foreseeable risk, due diligence served as an analytical tool for managing risks relating to human rights, but liability standards should include strict liability and precautionary principles and be secured, for example through the reversal of the burden of proof and rebuttable presumptions. Jurisdictions should be allowed to consider the complementary responsibility of various corporate actors, even when the places of domicile of the actors were different. 119. A fourth panellist gave an overview of the Alien Tort Statute, by which courts in the United States of America were granted jurisdiction over claims made by a non-citizen of the United States physically present in the United States for violation of international law. 20