A/HRC/38/49 advantages, positive examples were actually scarce, and that these mechanisms could lead to ineffective results owing to the lack of sanctioning power. It was noted that: (a) The most successful State-based non-judicial mechanisms tended to be those that were highly specialized; this could lead, however, to a fragmentation of remedies in complex cases; (b) Only a fraction of non-judicial mechanisms had extraterritorial reach, and had a weak level of enforceability; (c) Most State-based non-judicial mechanisms also had a mandate focusing on the prevention of adverse effects, which might make them less effective as tools for accountability. 32. One observation made on recent trends was that several States had committed to review how State-based non-judicial grievance mechanisms work in relation to businessrelated human rights impacts in general, and to strengthen the national contact point system of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in particular. 33. In several sessions, participants addressed the national contact point system and its peer review process. It was a common understanding that, despite the need for further action, national contact points are potentially an important avenue for access to remedy in many situations (that is, when there is a link to countries adhering to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises). One of the challenges highlighted was the lack of awareness about national contact points among affected stakeholders (communities, non-governmental organizations, workers and unions) and business. It was suggested that the contact points could complement judicial mechanisms by providing advantages, such as greater accessibility, faster processes and lower costs; a dialogue-oriented system, fostering mediation if the parties agree; and quasi jurisprudence, at least in some countries (such as France). 34. One case study where the outcome had been deemed successful by stakeholders featured during Forum discussions. It had been filed in 2015 with the national contact point in the Netherlands by 168 factory workers previously employed by the Congolese subsidiary of the Heineken company, Bralima, for violations of labour rights during the civil war in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, from 1999 to 2002. Success factors included: • No statute of limitations • Acknowledgement that remedy was the reason behind the national contact point system • Clear incentives for companies to participate constructively • Accessibility maximized by conducting local fact-finding and mediation, translating documents, and covering complainants’ travel costs • In the Netherlands, national contact point operated transparently and did not apply overly strict confidentiality restrictions; media attention also helped the case 35. In discussions on the ongoing peer review process of national contact points, all stakeholders — the national contact point under review, peer reviewers, civil society organizations, trade unions and business organizations — highlighted the advantages of the process. The process offered an opportunity for raising awareness and deepening understanding of the functioning of national contact points, and for sharing learning and improving accountability. The peer review process concerning the national contact point in Belgium was identified by non-governmental organizations as a good example of transparency on how recommendations were being addressed. Challenges nonetheless remained, such as in the assessment of its impact, and the lack of clarity with regard to how external inputs are considered in the review process. Non-governmental organizations found that the results in terms of facilitating access to remedy had not been taken properly into consideration. 36. National human rights institutions were another important group of actors in the area of State-based non-judicial remedy and business and human rights. With more than 40 9