A/HRC/43/71 respond in writing within 60 days with an initial response, providing any clarification or update of the information. Moreover, they were informed that they could request that the substance of their written responses be kept confidential; a number of enterprises made such a request (A/HRC/37/39, para. 20). In some cases, lengthier processes of dialogue developed between OHCHR and business enterprises. In other cases, no response was received. 23. At the conclusion of that process, OHCHR assessed all the information available to it against the definitions of the three necessary elements set out in paragraph 9 above, whether, as a factual matter, the standard of reasonable grounds to believe involvement in the listed activities had been met. V. OHCHR engagement with business enterprises 24. OHCHR engaged with business enterprises throughout all stages of its work on the database. The direct communication facilitated the exchange of information and offered business enterprises the opportunity to provide views on their alleged involvement in listed activities. In several instances, business enterprises denied any involvement in the listed activities. These business enterprises were not included in the database. Some business enterprises requested further information on the methodology and mandate, to which OHCHR responded. 25. As already noted in the previous report (A/HRC/37/39, para. 22), responses from business enterprises included: (a) objection to the mandate of OHCHR and a refusal to provide a substantive response to the information presented; (b) rejection of the information presented and objected to being included in the database; (c) confirmation of the information presented concerning their involvement in one or more of the listed activities, and the provision of explanations; and/or (d) provision of updated information that indicated they were no longer involved in one or more of the listed activities. 26. OHCHR responded to business enterprises’ queries on the mandate and presented, as necessary, further detailed information concerning the alleged involvement in listed activities. 27. All those business enterprises that met the standard of proof for inclusion in the database were informed in writing of their inclusion and of the procedure by which they could be removed. OHCHR invited the business enterprises to continue to engage with it, in line with the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (A/HRC/17/31, annex). 28. OHCHR rescreened all business enterprises prior to the submission of the present report to confirm that the activity or activities for which they were included in the database met the applicable standard of proof during the period under review. 29. A number of business enterprises communicated to OHCHR that they were no longer involved in the relevant activity or that the nature of their involvement had fallen outside the scope of the mandate. In those cases, OHCHR assessed the information provided and discontinued its consideration of those business enterprises no longer assessed to be involved in the listed activities. 30. Where business enterprises did not provide additional information or clarifications, OHCHR relied on desk research to assess the information received from Member States and other stakeholders. VI. Database of business enterprises 31. OHCHR found that 112 of the 188 business enterprises considered for inclusion in the database met the required standard of reasonable grounds to believe that they were 5