A/HRC/33/40 business activity; the doctrine of State responsibility should be invoked to make abuses justiciable where the enterprises operate or are registered. 81. In June 2014, the Human Rights Council adopted resolution 26/9 creating an intergovernmental working group with the mandate to draft such an instrument.58 In July 2015, the first session of the working group was held in Geneva;59 its second session is scheduled to be held in October 2016 and deserves the support of all States and civil society. The Forum on Business and Human Rights60 contributes to that process. 82. Beyond the treaty, there is an urgent need to strengthen national and international penal law, including anti-trust legislation, to address cases of corruption, fraud, bribery,61 money-laundering, conspiracy, collusion, tax evasion, insider-trading, looting of pension funds, and reckless endangerment of life and the environment. In that context, the United Nations Convention against Corruption and the United Nations Office at Vienna could advance the process. Also pertinent is the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, as certain activities of mining enterprises, including gold, diamond and coltan mining, 62 as well as the ivory trade,63 entail criminal acts and gross human rights violations. 83. A treaty on corporate legal responsibility should not stop at defining the civil liability of transnational corporations. There must also be penal responsibility when corporate actions cause death or grievous harm, and when they destroy landscapes and the common heritage of mankind. Indeed, some activities of petroleum, gas and mining enterprises constitute a major attack on the environment, accompanied by reckless endangerment of millions of peoples’ lives. Such attacks, perpetrated not only by legal persons, but by individuals sitting in corporate boardrooms, may well be justiciable as crimes against humanity pursuant to article 7 (1) (k) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. In cases where business activity causes the involuntary displacement of populations, article 7 (1) (d) applies. The Nuremberg Trials showed the way in prosecuting and convicting business executives of the I.G. Farben, Flick and Krupp companies because of their complicity in Nazi crimes. In 1946 Bruno Tesch, a business executive responsible for the production of Zyklon B, was tried and convicted. Today the penal responsibility of enterprises producing indiscriminate weapons such as landmines, cluster bombs, depleted uranium ammunition and white phosphor can and must come before the International Criminal Court. There is no justification for business executives enjoying impunity. Universal jurisdiction should be tested in appropriate cases. 84. Hitherto, victims of corporate abuses were left without adequate recourse or remedy. That poses a serious challenge to the Human Rights Council and calls not only for diagnoses but for concrete recommendations and implementable solutions. The strengthening of the human rights enforcement system is necessary to counter the prevalent architecture of corporate impunity. 58 59 60 61 62 63 GE.16-11938 http://business-humanrights.org/en/binding-treaty/un-human-rights-council-sessions. Kinda Mohamadieh and Daniel Uribe, “Business and Human Rights”, South Bulletin, vols. 87-88, 23 November 2015. On 25 September 2015, Pope Francis said before the General Assembly: “We must avoid every temptation to fall into a declarationist nominalism which would assuage our consciences. We need to ensure that our institutions are truly effective in the struggle against all these scourges”, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/september/documents/papafrancesco_20150925_onu-visita.html. www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Forum/Pages/ForumonBusinessandHumanRights.aspx. www.theage.com.au/interactive/2016/the-bribe-factory/day-1/the-company-that-bribed-theworld.html. www.congoweek.org/en/coltan-facts.html. http://iworry.org/crisis/?gclid=COnuwKXxks0CFVIaGwod6hMH2g. 19