A/HRC/40/48 Annex III Summary of statements by panellists First reading of the Draft LBI A. Articles 2 and 8 1. The first panellist discussed two trends: the increasing recognition of the indivisibility of human rights, and the increasing protection in specialized areas. When such notions overlap, a beneficial impact occurs when there is allocation of resources and synergies with existing normative standards. These exist in the Draft LBI, and the enhanced protection of victims can be seen in the provisions on protection of victims and national implementation mechanisms. 2. The second panellist noted that, although article 8 is based on existing standards, it is important to include specific provisions on remedy and prevention. She underlined that victims often face obstacles when seeking access to justice, such as difficulties encountered when trying to prove a causal link between the acts of businesses within a supply chain and damage suffered. She welcomed the inclusion of certain provisions, such as those covering the right to collective action, the establishment of a victims’ fund and those facilitating judicial remedy. Additionally, she suggested more clarity in certain articles, particularly 8 (2) and 8 (4). 3. The third panellist suggested that article 2 should give prevention a more prominent role, include corporate accountability, and seek to empower individuals and communities whose rights are at risk. The panellist noted that, given the purpose of prevention, article 8 should add protections for those who are at risk of becoming victims, such as human rights defenders, and cover issues such as procedural protections and injunctive relief. While article 8 recognizes the right to access to justice, she noted that it does not clearly oblige States to remove barriers to justice. Additionally, she suggested that several provisions be clarified, such as 8(3), in relation to which States are addressed, and article 8(4), with respect to the kind of information referred to. 4. The fourth panellist shared a story of a human rights defender who had been attacked and who was unable to stop abuses by a TNC through domestic laws. She argued that this demonstrates the need for creating an LBI to address the power imbalance between those seeking to vindicate rights and powerful companies. She called for an extension of the international rule-based system to address the consequences of globalization, and noted the collective responsibility for protecting everyone, no matter where they live. B. Articles 6, 7 and 13 5. The first panellist emphasized the need for TNCs’ obligations to be clearly enshrined in a future instrument. Regarding article 13, she noted two key issues: first, the adherence of domestic law with international law should be clearer, and second, the primacy of human rights over trade and investment treaties should be prominently stated. With respect to article 7, the panellist suggested including stronger language favouring victims’ choice of law. 6. The second panellist encouraged the OEIGWG to take into consideration several provisions of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, and guidance interpreting those provisions. For instance, the OEIGWG could borrow language from Framework Convention article 5 (3) regarding preventing corporate capture. With respect to Draft LBI articles 13 (6) and 13 (7), the panellist queried how they relate to most favoured nation clauses, and pointed out that interpretation of trade and investment agreements are often done by dispute resolution mechanisms, not States. 7. The third panellist noted that article 6 is particularly useful and a good building block for the treaty, emphasizing that it should cover certain acts that are not part of the Rome 24