A/HRC/44/32/Add.1 I. Introduction 1. This document accompanies the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on improving accountability and access to remedy for victims of business-related human rights abuse through non-State-based grievance mechanisms (the “main report”).1 The main report, together with this explanatory addendum, marks the conclusion of the third phase of the Accountability and Remedy Project of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (“OHCHR”).2 2. Following the format used for previous phases of the project, 3 the main report comprises an opening narrative section, followed by a technical annex with “recommended action” (“the annex”) arranged in a series of policy objectives supplemented by supporting elements to show how the policy objectives can be achieved in practice. 3. This addendum explains how OHCHR research has been applied towards developing the policy objectives and supporting elements and provides further information to aid understanding and implementation. Box 1: Note on terminology and numbering In the annex to A/HRC/44/32, the policy objectives are indicated in bold, and their supporting elements are the numbered paragraphs that follow. These supporting elements are referenced in this addendum by the same number; thus, a reference in this document to “1.1” is a reference to the first element under policy objective 1 in that annex. Recognizing the diversity of non-State-based grievance mechanisms and their operating contexts Box 2: Key concepts “Non-State-based grievance mechanisms” have been defined for the purposes of the Accountability and Remedy Project as any routinized, non-State-based, non-judicial process through which grievances concerning business-related human rights abuse can be raised and remedy can be sought.4 4. “Non-State-based grievance mechanisms”, as described in the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (the “Guiding Principles”), 5 cover a vast array of different processes for delivering remedy for business-related human rights harms. Analysis of their roles and performance is complicated by their diversity. For instance, good practice lessons that may be drawn from experiences with dialogue-based operational-level grievance mechanisms may not be so readily applied to other types of mechanisms, such as a grievance mechanism associated with a code of conduct administered by a multi-stakeholder group. For this reason, some elements of the recommended action are expressed as being subject to caveats (e.g. that they be implemented to the extent “relevant” or “appropriate” considering the mechanism’s particular mandate, objectives and operations). 5. The Guiding Principles call on States to “consider ways to facilitate access to effective non-State-based grievance mechanisms dealing with business-related human rights harms.”6 The recommended action stresses the vital role of States in creating an enabling legal and policy environment for non-State-based grievance mechanisms that is consistent with the 1 2 3 4 5 6 A/HRC/44/32. See further A/HRC/44/32, paras. 1–4, 12–26. A/HRC/32/19, A/HRC/32/19/Add.1, A/HRC/38/20, A/HRC/38/20/Add.1. See further www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/ARP/ARPIII-PoW.pdf, pp. 11, 13–17. A/HRC/17/31, annex. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, principle 28. 3