A/HRC/44/32/Add.1 instance through (i) licences to operate certain businesses, (ii) land concession grants, (iii) grants of concessions to develop natural resources, or (iv) relevant contracts with the State, such as procurement contracts, public-private partnership arrangements, export credit and investment agreements. 11. Preserving a clear delineation between the roles and responsibilities of non-Statebased grievance mechanisms and State-based mechanisms (1.3) is important for providing clarity to rights holders about the remedy pathways15 that may be available to them.16 There will be circumstances (for example, cases involving international crimes or serious human rights abuses), in which judicial remedy must be available. Non-State-based grievance mechanisms must not limit access by rights holders to judicial mechanisms in such cases (8.4).17 12. Awareness of the needs and preferences of rights holders, such as the reasons why they may seek to use more than one type of mechanism, may help to highlight barriers that may not be apparent when mechanisms are viewed in isolation (1.4), for instance as regards time limits for accessing State-based mechanisms that do not take account of prior efforts by rights holders to resolve grievances using non-State-based grievance mechanisms. 13. Greater attention could be given to the various ways in which information derived from non-State-based grievance mechanisms might be integrated into other processes, such as those involving law enforcement (1.5) and other State agencies (1.7), including regulators and institutions with mandates relevant to business and human rights, such as national human rights institutions. 14. Improvements in the effectiveness of non-State-based grievance mechanisms may also be achieved through greater cooperation between business enterprises themselves. 18 As part of efforts to create an enabling legal and policy environment for these types of mechanisms, the recommended action encourages States to address possible legal impediments to this kind of cooperation (1.6). 2. Protection from retaliation 15. Fear of retaliation poses a serious barrier to remedy. Protection from human rights abuses associated with the use of (or intended use of) non-State-based grievance mechanisms is encompassed by the State’s duty to protect human rights. 16. The recommended action highlights the importance of effective legal regimes to combat retaliation associated with the use of, or interactions with, non-State-based grievance mechanisms (2.1). For these purposes, retaliation is defined broadly, recognizing that rights holders may be deterred from interacting with non-State-based grievance mechanisms out of concern for the well-being or safety of others. 17. Robust criminal law regimes and law enforcement have a key role to play in deterring and punishing retaliatory behaviour.19 However, States should not neglect other potentially relevant regimes, including civil liability regimes, 20 privacy laws, laws protecting fundamental labour rights, whistle-blower protection and freedom of expression. 18. Neither should States overlook the domestic legal regimes which may undermine rights holders’ ability to access and interact with non-State-based grievance mechanisms confidently and without fear of retaliation. Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP suits) are important to mention in this regard. A comprehensive and coherent strategy to address the risk of retaliation in this context will seek to address the tensions between different areas of law (such as may exist between laws on freedom of expression 15 16 17 18 19 20 See A/HRC/38/20/Add.1, box 3. See section II.A.4. See Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, principle 26 commentary; A/HRC/32/19, annex, para. 1.2; A/HRC/32/19/Add.1, para. 3. See section II.C. See further A/HRC/32/19, annex, part I. See further ibid., part II. 7