A/HRC/38/20 request a review of decisions by a State-based non-judicial mechanism with respect to the transfer or referral of proceedings, allegations or evidence to judicial mechanisms and/or other law enforcement bodies. 3.5 The procedural rules and practices of judicial mechanisms provide for the participation of State-based non-judicial mechanisms in judicial proceedings to the extent relevant and appropriate (for example, as prosecutors, advocates, representatives, expert witnesses or as persons authorized to intervene on the basis of having a specific interest or relevant expertise). 3.6 State-based non-judicial mechanisms and judicial mechanisms have adopted and implemented equitable, predictable, rights-compatible and transparent procedures to be followed in the event that more than one mechanism (whether judicial or non-judicial) has been called upon to investigate, adjudicate upon and/or mediate a set of allegations arising from a single event and/or similar sets of circumstances and involving the same business enterprises. 3.7 Rights holders retain the ability to alter a remedial course of action in response to evolving circumstances, including by transferring a complaint and/or dispute from a Statebased mechanism to a judicial mechanism in the event that it becomes clear that judicial recourse is an essential part of having access to remedy and/or alternative methods of achieving effective remedy are unavailable. 3.8 In cases where both State-based non-judicial mechanisms and judicial mechanisms may have a role in the delivery of an effective remedy, their procedural rules and practices operate in a manner that serves to reduce barriers to remedy for rights holders and does not contribute to the creation of new barriers to remedy. Policy objective 4: State-based non-judicial mechanisms, individually and in combination, contribute to the realization of effective remedial outcomes for individuals and communities that have been subjected to business-related human rights abuses. 4.1 The State adopts and implements laws and policies with respect to State-based mechanisms that are aligned with the principles of equal and effective access to justice, adequate, effective and prompt reparation for harm suffered, and access to relevant information concerning violations and reparation mechanisms. 1 To this end, laws and policies relevant to the realization of remedial outcomes in cases of business-related human rights abuses draw appropriately from all recognized categories of full and effective reparation (namely, restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition),2 and wherever possible, provide for choice by rights holders of the type of remedial outcomes most appropriate in the light of the specific circumstances of the case. 4.2 The State has made appropriate arrangements to address the risk of nonimplementation of remedial outcomes (including non-compliance with the terms of a remedial agreement or determination), which may include (depending upon the mandates and functions of the relevant mechanisms) (a) the use of robust self-executing enforcement powers; (b) the possibility of enforcement through judicial mechanisms; (c) regulatory or administrative follow-up activities (including monitoring); or (d) the imposition of regulatory and/or other consequences. Agencies responsible for enforcement, follow-up, monitoring or other action are appropriately responsive to requests by rights holders to exercise their powers of enforcement and/or supervision (as relevant), and operate in a manner consistent with international standards relating to the prompt implementation of remedial outcomes in cases of human rights abuse. 1 2 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law (General Assembly resolution 60/147, annex). Ibid., sect. IX, para. 18. 11