A/HRC/38/20 I. Introduction 1. In 2013, as part of its mandate to advance the protection and promotion of human rights globally, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) initiated a process aimed at helping States strengthen their implementation of the pillar on access to remedy of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (see A/HRC/17/31, annex). 2. In its resolution 26/22, the Human Rights Council requested the High Commissioner to continue work on improving access to remedy and to report thereon to the Council. In November 2014, and pursuant to that mandate, OHCHR launched the Accountability and Remedy Project, which explored the role and use of judicial mechanisms (namely, domestic courts). The High Commissioner submitted a report thereon to the Council at its thirtysecond session (A/HRC/32/19 and Add.1). 3. In its resolution 32/10, the Human Rights Council requested the High Commissioner to identify and analyse lessons learned, best practices, challenges and possibilities to improve the effectiveness of State-based non-judicial mechanisms that are relevant for the respect by business enterprises for human rights, including in a cross-border context. The work carried out by OHCHR pursuant to that request comprises part II of the Accountability and Remedy Project, which is the subject of the present report (see also A/HRC/38/20/Add.1). II. Accountability and access to remedy: the role of State-based non-judicial mechanisms 4. Victims of business-related human rights abuses continue to struggle to achieve effective remedies for the harm they have suffered. While challenges vary from one context to another, a number of persistent problems common to many jurisdictions may be identified: fragmented, poorly designed or incomplete legal regimes; lack of legal development; lack of awareness of the scope and operation of regimes; structural complexities within business enterprises; problems in gaining access to sufficient funding for private law claims; and a lack of enforcement (A/HRC/32/19, para. 4). 5. Ensuring the accountability of business enterprises and access to effective remedy for victims is a vital part of a State’s duty to protect against business-related human rights abuses, as required by international human rights law and reflected in the Guiding Principles. While effective judicial mechanisms are at the core of ensuring access to remedy (see A/HRC/17/31, annex, principle 26 and commentary), administrative, legislative and other non-judicial mechanisms play an essential role in complementing and supplementing judicial mechanisms (ibid., principle 27 and commentary). 6. State-based non-judicial mechanisms may take many different forms. In most jurisdictions, a range of mechanisms with a role to play in the handling of complaints and/or resolving disputes arising from business-related human rights abuses may be identified. Such mechanisms can be found at all levels of government: local, regional and national. While some have mandates relating to all human rights, many are specialized bodies that focus on specific human rights-related themes, such as labour rights, nondiscrimination, consumer rights, the right to privacy, environmental rights, or the rights to water or to health. Common examples of relevant State-based non-judicial mechanisms include labour inspectorates; employment tribunals; consumer protection bodies (often tailored to different business sectors); environmental tribunals; privacy and data protection bodies; State ombudsman services; public health and safety bodies; professional standards bodies; and national human rights institutions. 7. In addition to the above-mentioned categories, States may innovate further to respond to specific business-related human rights risks within their jurisdictions, and in some cases have done so by establishing specialized mechanisms aimed at the protection of groups identified as being at a heightened risk of vulnerability or marginalization, such as 3