A/HRC/40/48 suggested that the instrument use the terminology of principle 12 of the Guiding Principles, which referred to internationally recognized human rights. In addition, some delegations suggested expanding the wording of article 3 (2) to cover international humanitarian law or human rights and fundamental freedoms. Some NGOs made suggestions about which rights to include, such as environmental rights, gender equality, the right to self-determination and the collective rights of indigenous peoples. 75. Many delegations requested more precision for the definition of victims contained in article 4 (1). Some were of the view that the definition was too broad, and there was concern that it could be abused by people who did not even need to establish a link to a company’s harmful activities. At least one delegation and one NGO noted that the list of harms was not entirely clear, and others asked why the impairment of a person’s human rights needed to be “substantial” before he or she could be considered a victim. Another delegation and an NGO challenged the use of the term “victim” in general and suggested that it would be more appropriate to refer to “person” or “rights holder”. Some delegations and NGOs suggested including references to particular groups, such as peoples or communities, vulnerable populations and human rights defenders. 76. Although the comments on article 3 (1) were applicable to article 4 (2), arguments specifically regarding the latter article were also made. Some delegations and NGOs questioned the provision of article 4 (2) under which business activities of a transnational character were understood to mean for-profit activities alone. That qualification, in their view, unnecessarily narrowed the scope of the instrument and exempted certain companies that were responsible for human rights abuses. There were also calls for explicit references to parent companies and/or global supply chains, as well as transnational corporations and other business enterprises. F. Article 5 77. The Chair-Rapporteur opened the panel discussion by clarifying that the goal of article 5 was to allow victims to choose the forum where their legal cases should be heard. In the working group’s previous discussion, having such a choice had been identified as key to ensuring effective access to justice. The sources that had been drawn on to draft the article had included European Union regulations, general comment No. 24 (2017) on State obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the context of business activities of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and general comment No. 16 (2013) on State obligations regarding the impact of the business sector on children’s rights of the Committee on the Rights of the Child. 78. Several delegations and many NGOs stressed the importance of including an article on jurisdiction and noted that transnational corporations and other business enterprises often escaped accountability by taking advantage of differing rules among States regarding jurisdiction. Thus, they expressed the hope that the instrument could address such gaps and provide some uniformity in that area. There were several calls for clearer provisions in article 5 and internal consistency with other parts of the draft (articles 7 and 10 in particular). An NGO asked whether article 5 addressed civil jurisdiction alone and requested clarification of the draft’s approach to criminal jurisdiction. 79. Delegations expressed their support for article 5 (1) (a), as it reaffirmed jurisdiction on the basis of territoriality. There was greater discussion surrounding article 5 (1) (b), since it could permit the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction. A business organization argued that the exercise of such jurisdiction threatened States’ sovereignty and would divert attention from the need to strengthen access to remedy in the jurisdictions where harms occurred. Some delegations raised similar concerns, noting that States had abused extraterritorial jurisdiction in the past, and requested that the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction be appropriately limited. Many NGOs disregarded those concerns and argued that the basis for jurisdiction in article 5 (1) (b) was accepted in international law – States had the right to regulate the actions of their nationals abroad. Calls to include additional bases of jurisdiction in article 5 (1) were also made. Two delegations suggested permitting courts to assert jurisdiction when the victim 14