A/HRC/17/31 mechanisms. Further guidance with regard to these mechanisms is provided in Guiding Principles 26 to 31. B. Operational principles State-based judicial mechanisms 26. States should take appropriate steps to ensure the effectiveness of domestic judicial mechanisms when addressing business-related human rights abuses, including considering ways to reduce legal, practical and other relevant barriers that could lead to a denial of access to remedy. Commentary Effective judicial mechanisms are at the core of ensuring access to remedy. Their ability to address business-related human rights abuses depends on their impartiality, integrity and ability to accord due process. States should ensure that they do not erect barriers to prevent legitimate cases from being brought before the courts in situations where judicial recourse is an essential part of accessing remedy or alternative sources of effective remedy are unavailable. They should also ensure that the provision of justice is not prevented by corruption of the judicial process, that courts are independent of economic or political pressures from other State agents and from business actors, and that the legitimate and peaceful activities of human rights defenders are not obstructed. Legal barriers that can prevent legitimate cases involving business-related human rights abuse from being addressed can arise where, for example: • The way in which legal responsibility is attributed among members of a corporate group under domestic criminal and civil laws facilitates the avoidance of appropriate accountability; • Where claimants face a denial of justice in a host State and cannot access home State courts regardless of the merits of the claim; • Where certain groups, such as indigenous peoples and migrants, are excluded from the same level of legal protection of their human rights that applies to the wider population. Practical and procedural barriers to accessing judicial remedy can arise where, for example: • The costs of bringing claims go beyond being an appropriate deterrent to unmeritorious cases and/or cannot be reduced to reasonable levels through government support, ‘market-based’ mechanisms (such as litigation insurance and legal fee structures), or other means; • Claimants experience difficulty in securing legal representation, due to a lack of resources or of other incentives for lawyers to advise claimants in this area; • There are inadequate options for aggregating claims or enabling representative proceedings (such as class actions and other collective action procedures), and this prevents effective remedy for individual claimants; • State prosecutors lack adequate resources, expertise and support to meet the State’s own obligations to investigate individual and business involvement in human rightsrelated crimes. 23