A/HRC/44/32 and elements can be found in the addendum to the present report, which provides definitions, examples and added context, and which should be read alongside the report. 20 20. The recommended action should not be regarded as a finite or exhaustive list of possible solutions. There may indeed be other ways of achieving the underlying goal of improving implementation of the Guiding Principles in general and the effectiveness criteria for non-judicial grievance mechanisms in particular. 21. Nevertheless, the recommended action can be a significant resource for States, policymakers, practitioners and other actors seeking to improve the effectiveness of nonState-based grievance mechanisms. This recommended action can provide a source of inspiration for regulatory developments, domestic review processes, and work towards developing and implementing national action plans on business and human rights, and can act as a possible platform for future dialogue, cross-fertilization of ideas, innovation and progress. 22. Part I of the annex is addressed to States and highlights the various ways in which they can work towards developing a legal and policy space that enables non-State-based grievance mechanisms to make a positive contribution to accountability and remedy in business and human rights cases. The recommended action in part I can help States to identify the important interlinkages that exist between domestic legal regimes and the effective functioning of non-State-based grievance mechanisms, and then to improve them where possible so that affected stakeholders have realistic and viable pathways to effective remedies that include, should they so choose, recourse to effective non-State-based grievance mechanisms. 23. Parts II and III of the annex are addressed particularly to developers and operators of non-State-based grievance mechanisms (which include entities or organizations that create, design or host non-State-based grievance mechanisms (such as business enterprises or development finance institutions), non-State-based grievance mechanisms themselves and their personnel).21 Part II is concerned with the effectiveness of individual non-State-based grievance mechanisms and highlights the different ways in which the various effectiveness criteria set out in Guiding Principle 31 can be met in practice. 24. Part III of the annex encourages developers and operators of non-State-based grievance mechanisms to take advantage of opportunities for greater cooperation with other entities and mechanisms with a view to raising standards and enhancing access to remedies in specific contexts and cases. D. Relationship between the three phases of the Accountability and Remedy Project 25. The Human Rights Council’s three successive mandates relating to access to remedy for business-related human rights harms22 have provided a framework for OHCHR to address each of the three main types of mechanisms referred to in the Guiding Principles. Although State-based mechanisms and non-State-based mechanisms are conceptually and functionally distinct, there are many ways in which the activities of State-based mechanisms (both judicial and non-judicial) and non-State-based grievance mechanisms can interrelate in practice. For this reason, the recommended action in the reports on each phase of the Accountability and Remedy Project should not be treated as separate, but as mutually reinforcing and complementary. 26. At the same time, the present report is predicated upon the position, laid out in the Guiding Principles, that effective judicial mechanisms are “at the core” of ensuring access to remedy; 23 thus, nothing in this report should be read as limiting or undermining the importance of effective domestic law regimes and well-functioning judicial mechanisms to enforce them. 20 21 22 23 6 A/HRC/44/32/Add.1. See further A/HRC/44/32/Add.1, part II.C. Human Rights Council resolutions 26/22, 32/10 and 38/13. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, principle 26 and commentary.