A/HRC/44/32/Add.1 The concept of “effective remedies” and the contribution of non-State-based grievance mechanisms 4. 26. Policy objective 4 focuses on the substantive aspects of remedy (as opposed to the procedural ones). Although States will not generally be in a position to prescribe the remedial outcomes of non-State-based grievance processes, and while specific mechanisms may be individually limited in what they can provide by way of remedy in any event, 23 to the extent that the State is able to influence the work of such mechanisms (individually and in general), this should be aligned with applicable international standards (4.1(a)), drawing appropriately from all relevant categories of remedy (4.1(b)) and appropriately responsive to the context, particularly the needs and perspectives of affected stakeholders (4.1(c)). 5. International cooperation 27. The use of non-State-based mechanisms for dealing with business related human rights harms has been discussed in bilateral, regional and multilateral settings.24 States have also participated in multi-stakeholder initiatives which have led to the creation of sectorspecific mechanisms.25 States should build on these efforts and identify areas where nonState-based grievance mechanisms may help to address business-related human rights risks, including in a cross-border context (5.1(a) and 5.1(b)). 28. The recommended action highlights the potential value of such mechanisms as a source of information for regulators (5.1(c) and 5.1(d)), particularly as regards issues that may require collaborative action (e.g. as between State parties to trading agreements). 29. Embassies and consular services can play a role as a source of advice and assistance for rights holders, business enterprises, and other relevant stakeholders (5.2). This type of assistance can be particularly important where there are social and economic challenges that may undermine the effectiveness of remedial mechanisms (whether State-based or non-Statebased), including with regard to lack of respect for the rule of law, lack of resources for and capacity of key institutions, or in conflict-affected areas. In the latter context, embassies and consular services have a particularly important role to play in disseminating information on the security risks that may be faced by rights holders, which can be drawn upon to help inform risk assessments and risk management strategies, for instance in relation to retaliation. B. Improving the effectiveness of non-State-based grievance mechanisms Box 4: Key concepts “Effectiveness criteria” means the criteria applicable to non-judicial grievance mechanisms found in Guiding Principle 31. “Remedial outcome” refers to the outcome reached at the conclusion of a grievance process or series of parallel, overlapping or consecutive processes. 1. General comments about effectiveness 30. The effectiveness criteria found in Guiding Principle 31 provide the benchmark for assessing the effectiveness of non-State-based grievance mechanisms dealing with businessrelated human rights harms (6.2). 31. OHCHR has gathered information from non-State-based grievance mechanisms operating in a wide range of jurisdictions (representing different geographic regions, 23 24 25 See para. 22 above. See e.g., Council of Europe, Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)3; ILO, Promoting the Strategic Use of International Instruments for Trade Union Actions (2019). See e.g., the International Code of Conduct Association. 9