A/HRC/38/20 women, children, migrant workers, persons with disabilities, victims of modern slavery or bonded labour practices, or members of indigenous communities. 8. State-based non-judicial mechanisms also vary in their originating regimes and sources of authority. While many have their mandates, functions and powers defined by statute, some are the consequence of regulations or administrative orders, while others are on a more informal footing. Some — such as complaint mechanisms relating to professional standards — exist by virtue of specific regulatory regimes. Others, such as national contact points under the Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, are part of implementing arrangements under an international instrument and/or initiative. 9. These mechanisms are also diverse in their functions and powers; for instance, some are regulatory and/or adjudicative-type mechanisms, while others provide conciliation and/or mediation services. Some have self-executing powers (for example, to compel participation, to require production of information or to enforce remedial outcomes), whereas others rely on the cooperation of the parties involved. Some have the authority to conduct investigations on their own initiative, while the procedures followed by others can only be activated by specific complaints or disputes. 10. State-based non-judicial mechanisms can be broken down into five broad categories: • Complaint mechanisms1 • Inspectorates2 • Ombudsman services3 • Mediation or conciliation bodies4 • Arbitration and specialized tribunals5 11. The diversity and widespread use of these mechanisms highlight both their importance in regulatory terms and their adaptability to different contexts and challenges. The experiences of those seeking accountability and remedy for business-related human rights abuses suggest, however, that in many cases these mechanisms are not yet fulfilling the role envisaged for them in the Guiding Principles (see A/HRC/17/31, principle 27 and commentary). Haphazard legal and institutional development in some jurisdictions has led to unevenness and gaps in the extent to which different human rights are protected through these mechanisms. Complaints about underresourcing and lack of technical capacity are common. Rights holders’ lack of awareness of their rights, and the lack of accessibility of mechanisms (particularly by people at a heightened risk of vulnerability and/or marginalization) are problems in many jurisdictions. In serious or complex cases, it can be difficult to identify a mechanism (or combination of mechanisms) with a sufficiently broad 1 2 3 4 5 4 Typically operated by a State-appointed, State-supported and/or State-approved body with public regulatory and enforcement responsibilities. Typically operated by a State-appointed, State-supported and/or State-approved body with public regulatory and enforcement responsibilities and a range of enforcement functions and powers, including powers of investigation and to prescribe penalties and/or remedial action. Such a mechanism may take action on its own initiative or in response to a complaint, or both. It may also have education and awareness-raising functions. Typically with a specialized mandate associated with specific interest groups, regulatory themes or commercial sectors. Such mechanisms are charged with receiving, investigating and resolving disputes between individuals and business enterprises, and frequently draw on mediation and/or conciliation techniques to do so. Similar to ombudsman services, and aimed at finding a mutually acceptable outcome rather than the apportionment of blame. Mediation and conciliation techniques are often used in the resolution of consumer, employment or environment disputes and may be the precursor to more formal processes (for example, arbitration and conciliation). Oversee dispute resolution processes that are adversarial and/or inquisitorial in nature. Such mechanisms often have a high degree of procedural formality. Some have investigative powers that can be used on their own initiative. They may have the power to make legally binding determinations.