A/HRC/40/48 State suggested consulting the International Law Commission. Several delegations expressed concern about the formulation of article 7 (2), while some others expressed unease with the idea that their courts could be burdened with trying to decipher foreign laws, potentially in different languages and coming from foreign cultures, with respect to complex issues. A few delegations noted that permitting flexibility in choice of law rules could be acceptable in some civil lawsuits but would be unacceptable in criminal cases. They requested that the text thus be amended to remove criminal cases from its ambit. One delegation considered that the provision would create too much uncertainty, and suggested that it be removed. 51. Some States and many organizations insisted that article 13 (6) and (7) be strengthened and explicitly state that human rights enjoyed primacy over trade and investment agreements. One delegation suggested that those provisions take into account ongoing efforts to revise such agreements, and some NGOs said that the provisions should require that human rights impact assessments and consultations be conducted prior to entering such agreements. Two delegations, however, warned that going too far could undermine development. In addition, several delegations reserved their position on those provisions and expressed concern that the provisions could create an unacceptable hierarchy in international law, potentially violating customary international law. One delegation cautioned that there should be careful consideration of the language used as it could have an impact on many States’ large networks of agreements. 52. In the context of that discussion, reference was made to article 13 (3), since some delegations and NGOs considered there to be a conflict between it and the provisions in article 13 (6) and (7). Several NGOs suggested deleting article 13 (3), or at least the first sentence thereof. 53. One delegation signalled its approval of the reference to State sovereignty and territorial integrity in article 13 (1), while another expressed concern that States could attempt to rely on the reference to avoid assisting with international cooperation. One delegation asked as to why only some of the principles of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations had been cited. The delegation suggested that reference be made to all or none of them, so as not to give the impression of favouring some over others. C. Article 9 54. The Chair-Rapporteur opened the debate on article 9 by mentioning the texts that had been consulted in drafting the article. Chief among them were the Guiding Principles, guidelines of the International Labour Organization, European Union rules on non-financial reporting, national legislation such as the French law on the corporate duty of vigilance and general comments of the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 55. Many States and observer organizations welcomed the inclusion of an article focused on prevention and noted that it was one of the key articles of the draft. Of those, many agreed with a panellist that it would be more appropriate to refer to “human rights due diligence” throughout the article rather than due diligence alone. Similarly, there were several calls to align the provision more closely with the letter and spirit of the Guiding Principles and to build upon them where necessary. In that regard, some delegations and a business organization took issue with what they perceived to be an approach that focused on outcomes rather than conduct. In addition, multiple delegations reiterated their call for the instrument to cover all companies, both national and transnational. While several delegations and NGOs called for more precision in the text of the article, some States criticized it for attempting to prescribe too much. In their view, the article would be more effective if it outlined general standards and left it to each State to determine how best to implement them. Several NGOs insisted that the article impose direct obligations on transnational corporations; however, some delegations voiced concern that there was a risk that the article could lead to the inappropriate transfer of some obligations from the State to business. At least one delegation called for the article to give consideration to the need for States to develop and warned against overburdening certain companies. 10