A/HRC/8/5 page 23 A. Judicial mechanisms 88. Judicial mechanisms are often under-equipped to provide effective remedies for victims of corporate abuse. Victims face particular challenges when seeking personal compensation or reparation as opposed to more general sanction of the corporation through a fine or administrative remedies. They may lack a basis in domestic law on which to found a claim. Even if they can bring a case, political, economic or legal considerations may hamper enforcement. 89. Some complainants have sought remedy outside the State where the harm occurred, particularly through home State courts, but have faced extensive obstacles. Costs may be prohibitive, especially without legal aid; non-citizens may lack legal standing; and claims may be barred by statutes of limitations. Matters are further complicated if the claimant is seeking redress from a parent corporation for actions by a foreign subsidiary. In common law countries, the court may dismiss the case based on forum non conveniens grounds - essentially, that there is a more appropriate forum for it. Even the most independent judiciaries may be influenced by governments arguing for dismissal based on various “matters of State”. These obstacles may deter claims or leave the victim with a remedy that is difficult to enforce. 90. The law is slowly evolving in response to some of these obstacles. In some jurisdictions, plaintiffs have brought cases against parent companies claiming that they should be held responsible for their own actions and omissions in relation to harm involving their foreign subsidiaries.50 Elsewhere it is getting somewhat more difficult for defendant companies to have cases alleging harm abroad dismissed on the basis that there is a more appropriate forum.51 And foreign plaintiffs are using the United States Alien Tort Claims Act to sue even non-United States companies for harm suffered abroad.52 91. States should strengthen judicial capacity to hear complaints and enforce remedies against all corporations operating or based in their territory, while also protecting against frivolous claims. States should address obstacles to access to justice, including for foreign plaintiffs especially where alleged abuses reach the level of widespread and systematic human rights violations. 50 For example, Connelly v. RTZ Corporation plc and others [1998] AC 854, and Lubbe v. Cape plc [2000] 4 All ER 268 (House of Lords, United Kingdom). 51 The European Court of Justice has confirmed that national courts in an EU member State may not dismiss actions against companies domiciled in that State on forum non conveniens grounds. Owusu v. Jackson [2005] ECR-I-1283. And in Australia, defendants must now prove that the forum is “clearly inappropriate”. Voth v. Manildra Flour Mills Pty. Ltd. (1990) 171 C.L.R. 538 (H.C.A.). 52 More than 40 cases have been brought against companies under this statute since 1993, when the first was filed.