A/HRC/35/33 domestic offence — for example, forced labour can also constitute false imprisonment, and crimes against humanity can involve offences such as murder and assault. However, in all cases, any charges should reflect the gravity of the offence; thus, prosecutors should consider any human rights impacts of the crime when deciding the charges to be brought against an economic actor. 91. States are thus urged to collaboratively investigate and prosecute all cases where economic actors engage in conduct adversely impacting internationally recognized human rights to the extent that such harms arise from prohibited conduct within a national jurisdiction. 92. To investigate and prosecute these charges properly, States should apply the tools and methods discussed above, either directly or by analogy, to facilitate cooperation. Such means, as discussed in the guidance from the Accountability and Remedy Project and elaborated upon in the present report, have proved to generate effective results in cross-border cases. The recommendations below briefly recount those practices. B. Recommendations 93. States should adopt a legal framework that prohibits conduct causing or contributing to human rights violations and imposes liability on legal entities. Moreover, States are encouraged to ratify bilateral and multilateral agreements that provide a basis for cross-border cooperation and to ensure that their domestic law allows for cooperation to take place. 94. Specialized investigative and prosecutorial units should be created that have expertise in cross-border human rights cases and business associations. If war crimes or other types of units already exist, those units should be encouraged to address business-related human rights cases alongside those involving individual wrongdoers. 95. A central authority should be established to channel all requests for crossborder assistance made under different treaty regimes and other legal bases. This authority should be accessible at all times, provide contact information for domestic and foreign authorities and be staffed by mutual legal assistance specialists who are knowledgeable about procedural requirements and can work in several languages. A system should be in place that tracks the status of requests, prioritizes urgent appeals, and ensures that deadlines are met. 96. States should encourage authorities to cooperate and provide training on sending and receiving requests for assistance. Requests for mutual legal assistance should include relevant contact information, details on evidence admissibility requirements, and any confidentiality and timeline requirements. Before rejecting any requests, consultations should be had with the requesting State to try to overcome any issues. 97. Informal cooperation should be used to obtain publicly available information or other evidence that does not require coercive means by investigators. Such officerto-officer communication can help target subsequent requests for mutual legal assistance or accelerate responses to urgent formal requests. 98. If possible, States should consider conducting investigations in foreign jurisdictions if consent can be obtained. Law enforcement agencies are particularly encouraged to establish joint investigation teams using agreements covering all aspects of investigation, including division of labour and budgetary matters. Parallel investigations and joint centres of investigation should also be coordinated to minimize duplication of work and maximize efficiency. 99. States are encouraged to join, support and work with regional and international networks that promote cooperation and coordinate cross-border actions. These networks can operate well when they are informal, in that they serve to build relationships without requiring the creation of a new institution. 20