A/HRC/38/20 A. Policy coherence and systemic effectiveness 21. In many (if not all) jurisdictions, the goals of improved accountability and access to remedy for business-related human rights abuses are often best served by providing affected individuals and communities with a range of options for seeking redress, which could involve judicial mechanisms, non-judicial mechanisms or, in some cases, a combination of them. 22. Part I of the recommended action addresses the challenges faced in achieving policy coherence between these diverse mechanisms, and the various ways in which States can work towards developing a legal and regulatory environment that enables these various mechanisms to make a positive collective contribution to accountability and remedy in business and human rights cases. It has been designed to help States (a) to identify the important interlinkages between the different bodies that make up a comprehensive Statebased system to remedy business-related human rights abuse; and (b) to improve them where possible so that domestic laws and policies, taken as a whole, are able to provide affected individuals and communities with realistic and readily identifiable pathways to remedial outcomes that meet international standards with respect to the components of effective remedy, and make a positive contribution to future prevention. B. Effectiveness of individual State-based non-judicial mechanisms 23. Part II of the recommended action concerns the effectiveness of individual Statebased non-judicial mechanisms relevant to business respect for human rights. While different human rights-related risks and operating contexts will often require different regulatory and law enforcement responses, the elements of effectiveness of non-judicial mechanisms, and the steps needed to implement them effectively, are common to many different types of mechanisms. The recommended action in part II draws from the various information-gathering activities undertaken by OHCHR as part of the project, and highlights the different ways in which the various effectiveness criteria set out in Guiding Principle 31 can be implemented in practice. C. State-based non-judicial mechanisms and cross-border cases 24. At present, relatively few State-based non-judicial mechanisms have the legal authority and capacity to respond to cross-border cases (see para. 15 above). In some jurisdictions, such mechanisms have been established to provide a means by which concerns about business-related human rights abuses in other jurisdictions can be raised and mediated, the national contact point system under the OECD Guidelines being a notable example. These mechanisms are, for the most part, mediation-type mechanisms with limited formal investigative powers of their own, and rely for their effectiveness on the cooperation of the business enterprises concerned. State-based non-judicial mechanisms that have strong enforcement powers and the ability to investigate allegations on their own initiative (namely, those mechanisms with specific regulatory mandates) tend to be limited to addressing within-territory harm. 25. Recent State practice, however, suggests a growing willingness by some State-based non-judicial mechanisms, and national human rights institutions in particular, to enter into ad hoc cooperative arrangements with counterparts in other States to investigate and identify ways of addressing the adverse effects of business-related activities on human rights that cross national boundaries. 26. Part III of the recommended action highlights the various ways in which the capacity of State-based non-judicial mechanisms respond to cross-border cases could be enhanced in practice. 7