A/HRC/38/49 meaningfully to effective remedy, in accordance with the Guiding Principles, when they cause or contribute to human rights abuse. 16. The issue of power imbalances was a recurring theme. Lack of information and resources, and barriers caused by travelling distances and linguistic and cultural differences tended to limit the capacity of victims to engage in effective dialogue. The need for open dialogue between the parties and the independence of the process were highlighted as basic requirements for meaningful engagement with victims. 17. Against the background of power imbalances, one idea proposed by the Working Group and discussed at the Forum was a pro bono network of lawyers, aimed at facilitating greater access to legal support for victims. B. National action plans and the third pillar 18. Participants in the Forum recalled Human Rights Council resolution 26/22, in which the Council encouraged all States to take steps to implement the Guiding Principles, including to develop national action plans on business and human rights or other frameworks, and to submit annual reports on the implementation of their commitments. Participants highlighted the recent progress made in this area, while a number of States — Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Czechia, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland and Thailand — provided an update on their national action plans and other relevant initiatives. 3 The Working Group was encouraged by the increase in the number of States that had either developed or committed to developing a national action plan, and also by the commitment made by the G-20 leaders in 2017 to work towards developing such plans. 4 19. According to the Working Group, given the open-ended and evolving character of the process involved, national action plans had to be updated regularly. It highlighted also the need for an open and inclusive process involving all stakeholders (including victims and their representatives, labour unions and human rights defenders), and for national baseline assessments to ensure that national action plans were tailored to address the most pressing business-related human rights challenges in a given context. 20. The Working Group, business associations and civil society speakers pointed out that existing national action plans were limited in terms of action to improve access to remedy. Both existing and forthcoming plans therefore had to address substantial gaps and comprise more specific, measurable, achievable and time-bound actions and objectives, and effective follow-up systems. C. Judicial remedy 21. Access to judicial remedies was the backbone of the third pillar of the Guiding Principles. A central question for Forum discussions was how to increase the effectiveness of domestic public law regimes, with guidance by OHCHR (see A/HRC/32/19 and Add.1) and the Working Group (see A/72/162) providing a central reference. Participants highlighted the fact that companies are rarely subject to law enforcement with regard to administrative liability or other sanctions, the result of a number of challenges, such as lack of enforcement and weak domestic public law regimes. Discussions on domestic public law regimes focused on how to ensure effective deterrence and effective remedy, and how States could approach legal liability, and also on a range of well-known barriers to access to justice, many of which are linked to broader challenges to the rule of law. Key points included the following: 3 4 6 See www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Forum/Pages/2017Statements.aspx. Council of the European Union, G20 Leaders’ Declaration: “Shaping an interconnected world”, 8 July 2017.