A/HRC/38/49 (a) Although most States have legal systems capable of handling corporate wrongdoing, there are many different approaches to these issues, such as attribution of criminal liability; lack of enforcement is a major issue; (b) Corporate complicity is a key concept for the attribution of liability; most States that recognize corporate liability also recognize corporate complicity; (c) Legal regimes relevant to business respect for human rights are generally not framed in human rights terms, resulting in problems such as outcomes, where the only applicable sanctions (such as a fine) might not be commensurate with the severity of the abuse or the harm caused; (d) Resources available to prosecutors are limited (often accompanied by a lack of political will) to pursue companies or company representatives involved in alleged human rights abuses, and resources are even more limited when the harm has been inflicted in other jurisdictions. 22. Participants in the Forum examined how to overcome challenges and increase accountability for cross-border corporate human rights crimes by examining the life cycle of a criminal prosecution. Discussions highlighted recent work and initiatives to address existing accountability gaps, in particular: (a) The Corporate Crimes Principles, 5 which build on the experiences of legal practitioners and prosecutors in combating corporate crimes actively; (b) The study of the Working Group on best practices of cross-border cooperation between law enforcement agencies on business-related human rights cases (A/HRC/35/33), which confirmed that there was not a lot of practice in prosecuting such cases. The Working Group found, however, that in areas such as environmental protection, anti-corruption and anti-trafficking, there was good practice on which to build. In addition to formal mechanisms, it highlighted the importance of informal networks and cooperation, such as joint investigation teams. With political will, such practices could be replicated for business-related human rights cases. 23. Participants highlighted the key role of civil society organizations, including with reference to the recognition by the International Criminal Court that civil society plays an important part in collecting evidence, and the role of investigative journalism in exposing offshore tax avoidance schemes, money laundering and bribes (such as the investigations on the Panama Papers and the Paradise Papers by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists). At the same time, both non-governmental organizations and prosecutors cautioned that evidence collected by the organizations had to follow the principle of due process and principles of justice; otherwise, prosecutors may not be able to rely on them. 24. The safety and protection of whistle-blowers and civil society representatives was another main concern, as underlined by the recent deaths of investigative journalists, representatives of non-governmental organizations, United Nations field workers and human rights defenders. Prosecutors participating in the discussions stressed that collaboration with whistle-blowers and civil society actors had to be based on the protection of anonymity and safety. From the perspective of judges, it was noted that, often, the problem that courts face is not the lack of evidence, but rather the lack of the conceptual framework in which the evidence is considered, particularly the challenge of piercing the corporate veil. In this regard, participants noted that the concept of “corporate identity” had been introduced to promote risk-taking and economic development, not to act as a shield from accountability or liability. Judges therefore have to have the courage to apply responsibility right up to the head organization. With regard to existing legal and practice limitations in the application of extraterritorial jurisdiction by the judiciary, public opinion could bring about rapid change, as witnessed in the areas of anti-bribery/anti-corruption and anti-trafficking. 5 See www.commercecrimehumanrights.org. 7