A/HRC/34/47 The overview included examples of how corporate defendant litigation under the Statute had held corporations accountable and provided remedies to survivors who had no other means of redress. However, over the previous few years the Supreme Court of the United States had severely limited such litigation, particularly in corporate defendant cases, restricting the extraterritorial scope of the Statute. Nonetheless, the Statute demonstrated that a robust system of litigation could lead corporations to pay closer attention to the adverse impacts of their operations and provide an opportunity for victims to expose abusive corporate behaviour and obtain meaningful monetary compensation. 120. One delegation asked whether it would be relevant for a treaty to mention not only legal, but also non-legal, complaint mechanisms, such as those of national human rights institutions, and enquired about the added value of such a wide range of formal and informal redress avenues. 121. Another delegation acknowledged that there had not been much progress in the implementation of the third pillar of the Guiding Principles. It offered to share information about an in-depth study that had been conducted on how to hold the national corporations of the delegation’s country accountable even when they operated abroad, which had revealed ample opportunities in terms of access to justice, including through criminal laws. 122. In response to one delegation’s question about different levels of access across nations to scientific evidence and the use of specific technologies to prove human rights violations, one panellist recalled the international obligation of scientific cooperation in environmental law and the need for a binding instrument to shift the burden of proof, while pointing to the need to increase education for judiciary and legal professionals on international human rights law. 123. One member of the Working Group on business and human rights stated that the Working Group would focus on the third pillar of the Guiding Principles in its upcoming reports and at its forum in 2017. He encouraged all stakeholders to use the Working Group’s communication procedures. 124. In response to questions raised by several delegations on types of remedies, one panellist indicated that a wide range of options could be established through a treaty, but that all would need to fulfil the requirements of accessibility, independence, effectiveness and affordability. Local non-judicial bodies, such as corporate grievance mechanisms, national human rights institutions, ombudspersons and national contact points, were important since they were often more accessible. They could not, however, replace judicial mechanisms and thus were only complementary. They also required a lesser burden of proof and might allow for more creativity in the types of remedies granted, but procedural guarantees should be put in place for establishing such agreements. 125. In response to a question posed by some delegations on the type of international mechanism that could be established, one panellist indicated that he would prefer to use the monitoring system set up by human rights treaty bodies, which could receive complaints and authoritatively interpret the standards in the treaty through general recommendations. 126. Several NGOs reiterated the need to include the right to development as a founding and enforceable right in the treaty, as well as the rights to access to land, water and other resources, and the rights of migrant workers. 127. One organization reiterated that the utmost priority should be given to access to remedy on a domestic level through promotion of the rule of law, as such remedy was the most efficient in terms of cost and time. 21