A/HRC/30/28 main entry points for non-State actors, Mr. Nesi identified consultative processes and mechanisms such as public hearings, enquiries and other open forums for discussion and exchange of views. Other avenues could include local and national assemblies. 66. He said that human rights impact assessments were also important as they allowed all stakeholders and beneficiaries to be part of the national planning process. However, real participation needed to be broad-based and pluralistic, and to include vulnerable and marginalized groups. The business sector had an important role to play through corporate social responsibility, which also needed to be based on participation and inclusiveness. The importance of accountability in development was also increasingly recognized within the United Nations system. In this regard, it was necessary to understand accountability as a strategy consisting of several important elements. The first and foremost component was a functioning national justice system. If the national system did not work, one had to turn to linkages between national and international accountability. 67. Mr. Nesi observed that the role of the International Criminal Court was often mentioned and he recalled the possibility that permanent members of the Security Council had to block the prosecution of specific cases through the use of their veto. This, in turn, had led the discussion towards considering the possible role of the General Assembly in endorsing the prosecution of cases or setting up special ad hoc tribunals. A State could in some instances also resort to extraterritorial jurisdiction in pursuing its nationals for criminal acts committed abroad or when its nationals had become victims of acts outside its territory. Another option to explore was universal jurisdiction through which a State could use its jurisdiction to pursue non-nationals regardless of where the crimes had been committed. With regard to national policymaking, the most essential elements were good laws linked to effective enforcement measures through the courts. National human rights institutions also had a crucial role to play. 68. Mr. Magazzeni underlined the important contribution national human rights institutions and civil society could make to national policy development and implementation. Those actors could help identify capacity and implementation gaps, and monitor implementation against indicators and benchmarks. Through their involvement with international mechanisms, such as the universal periodic review, they could also participate at the international level. In the experience of OHCHR, national human rights action plans had proven to be effective instruments for coherent and effective human rights implementation. 69. He said that the most successful plans included a strong element of participation, involving all relevant stakeholders. The Board of Trustees of the Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights had also observed that a human rights-based approach involving civil society and national human rights institutions at all stages of national planning was essential to the effective implementation of programmes. Broad participation also strengthened national ownership, which, in turn, increased the impact and sustainability of development initiatives. 70. Mr. Nesi said that many States gave primacy to international law over domestic legislation, which could be the best way to ensure that the country’s human rights obligations were incorporated into national policies. It was also important for judges to be aware of that principle and take it into account in their work to render justice through the national court system. 71. Mr. Cárdenas said that the use of human rights indicators was a key instrument in policymaking in Paraguay. Such frameworks were being used to 13