A/HRC/34/47 The panellist suggested that the instrument should provide for mechanisms to facilitate the protection of human rights. 28. The sixth panellist criticized the practice of tax evasion by companies and suggested country-by-country tax reporting. The belief of States that they must sign bilateral investment treaties in order to attract foreign direct investment was seen as the source of the investor-State dispute settlement system. However, such bilateral treaties were a threat to democracy, removing the control of the judiciary, and could interfere with legislative processes. 29. Most delegations concurred that voluntary standards were insufficient and that a binding instrument should affirm that human rights obligations prevailed over commercial law. States had obligations to regulate in the public interest, defend the rights of people against privatization, strengthen mechanisms for due diligence and ensure that transnational corporations did not use their influence to avoid accountability and payment of reparations to victims. One delegation suggested that maximum deterrence could be achieved by imposing criminal liability. 30. Several delegations referred to the asymmetry between rights and obligations of transnational corporations in bilateral investment treaties and free trade agreements. Concern was expressed about the access by corporations to international arbitration against States, where there were no corresponding mechanisms to address the obligations of corporations to respect human rights. 31. A number of delegations referred to specific cases to demonstrate how transnational corporations had used bilateral and multilateral agreements to challenge measures taken by States to protect human rights. One delegation referred to a case where such a challenge had failed, highlighting the existence of tools for States to defend themselves properly before international arbitration tribunals. 32. Another delegation reaffirmed the right of the State to regulate in the public interest and referred to its own act on the protection of investment, aimed at securing a balance between the rights and responsibilities of investors. 33. Some delegations claimed that it was not feasible to compare transnational corporations and local companies since domestic law could hold the latter accountable. 34. Many NGOs stated that a binding instrument should not be conceived of as an isolated human rights instrument, but should take into account international trade and investment agreements. Furthermore, it should include a hierarchical clause establishing the primacy of human rights over trade and investment agreements and address critical gaps in assessing and monitoring the impact of such agreements. Calls were made for the establishment of an international tribunal or mechanism to investigate and ensure the accountability of transnational corporations. 35. One delegation raised the issue of unilateral economic sanctions and asked whether States could compel corporations to enforce such sanctions in the light of negative impacts on human rights. 36. NGOs enumerated some of the adverse human rights impacts caused by transnational corporations and requested that the binding instrument guarantee indigenous peoples’ rights, recognize the primacy of the human right to water over profit-seeking in the water sector and guarantee access to safe drinking water and other resources. Few countries had adopted national laws in accordance with the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169). 8