A/HRC/38/20 mandate to address the case in its entirety; responses can therefore be fragmented, and remedial outcomes may not meet international standards (see annex, para. 4.1). Lastly, owing to the strictly territorial mandate of many State-based non-judicial mechanisms, they often have limited, if any, authority to respond to cross-border cases. 12. There is scope for significant improvement in the capacity of State-based nonjudicial mechanisms, working individually and in combination, to deliver effective remedies in cases where human rights have been adversely affected by business activities. As a first step, there is a need for a greater understanding of the importance of State-based non-judicial mechanisms to the fulfilment by each State of its duty to protect against business-related human rights abuses and the contribution of each of these as part of a comprehensive State-based accountability and remedy system. Improving the effectiveness of these mechanisms and ensuring that they can fulfil the functions assigned to them within these systems (including the vital role of complementing and supporting judicial mechanisms) will require concerted and multifaceted efforts from all States, unilaterally and in cooperation. III. Overview A. Scope 13. Part II of the Accountability and Remedy Project has the aim of clarifying ways that States can strengthen their implementation of the pillar on access to remedy of the Guiding Principles through State-based non-judicial mechanisms, focusing in particular on (a) the structure and mandate of different mechanisms; (b) investigations and informationgathering processes; (c) aspects of the “effectiveness criteria” for non-judicial mechanisms (see A/HRC/17/31, principle 27 and commentary); (d) systemic effectiveness and policy coherence; and (e) cross-border cooperation.6 14. Many States face wider political, social and economic challenges that may undermine the effectiveness of State-based non-judicial mechanisms, including with regard to respect for the rule of law, poverty, corruption, and lack of resources and capacity of key institutions. The recommended action (see annex) is intended to complement and support the vital action by States to address these wider challenges. B. Methodology 15. To better understand the challenges relating to State-based non-judicial mechanisms at the national level, and the actions likely to be most effective given the diversity of legal systems, structures and traditions around the world, OHCHR gathered empirical information from a wide range of jurisdictions, by reviewing more than 430 business and human rights-related events, news reports, allegations and disputes; conducting a detailed information-gathering process (comprising a global online consultation and a directed process involving scholars and practitioners from a wide range of jurisdictions); performing additional work focusing specifically on the role and activities of national contact points under the OECD Guidelines and national human rights institutions; participating in a webinar to gather business views; holding two multi-stakeholder consultations; and conducting regular online consultative processes at key points in the project. 7 All key 6 7 The project parameters proposed by OHCHR were reviewed at a two-day expert workshop held in Geneva on 19 and 20 January 2017. The workshop was attended by representatives of States, civil society, businesses, United Nations agencies and international organizations, and academics with expertise in the field of State-based non-judicial mechanisms (see https://businesshumanrights.org/sites/default/files/images/ARPII_FINAL%20Scoping%20Paper.pdf). For the final list of focus areas and research processes, see https://business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/ documents/ARPII_phase1_Sector%20Study_Part%201.pdf. See OHCHR, “Accountability and Remedy Project Part II: State-based non-judicial mechanisms: State-based non-judicial mechanisms for accountability and remedy for business-related human 5