A/HRC/40/48 elaboration regarding provisions on the recognition and enforcement of judgments. Additionally, he suggested that the international cooperation in article 12 could include national human rights institutions and civil society. 14. The second panellist underscored the weakness of the State-based model that the Draft LBI adopted, arguing that it would be advisable to privilege a system of direct liability of corporations. He also noted the draft’s failure to fully engage with corporate law, and suggested to recognize and address the notion of fiduciary duty in order to recognize the responsibility of natural persons, in particular directors of corporations. 15. The third panellist highlighted the importance of facilitating access to courts in the home states of TNCs since victims often do not have access to justice where abuses occur. While noting that article 10(6) covers many important situations, he suggested that the wording be made clearer. Additionally, he stressed the importance of removing practical obstacles victims face; thus, the inclusion of issues like access to information in article 8 (4) are crucial to the success of the treaty and should be read along with article 10. 16. The fourth panellist welcomed article 10 (4) on the reversal of the burden of proof, but criticized the qualification that it be subject to domestic law, suggesting its removal. While noting that article 10 (6) should be explicitly linked to article 9 on prevention, she suggested that liability not be limited to the failure to comply with due diligence. Additionally, the panellist argued that requiring “intentional” conduct to establish criminal liability was too high a threshold and suggested that the instrument include more elaboration on administrative penalties. E. Articles 3 and 4 17. The first panellist noted the division regarding the scope of the Draft LBI. In his view, a victims-oriented approach requires that human rights violations are recognized and remedied regardless of the nature of activities of the perpetrator, be it a TNC or State. Further, he noted that most businesses are locally based, and if the focus is on the transnational character of activities, the LBI will be subject to loopholes. Thus, he proposed amending the scope so that transnational activity refers to “economic activity existing not solely for local purposes” and “taking place as a network of relationships that cross boundaries.” 18. The second panellist noted the impossibility of distinguishing between TNCs and OBEs. While the LBI could focus on the transnational character of the activities, its definition in article 4 should be refined. First, it should not exclude State-owned enterprises. Second, it should clarify that the activities could be those of the corporation or of the subsidiaries with whom they have a contractual link. 19. The third panellist highlighted the need to strike a balance between addressing accountability gaps of TNCs and making sure that no new conditions for impunity are created in the LBI. She supported the broad approach of article 3(2) but suggested clarifying the meaning of “international human rights” to avoid divergent interpretations. In her view, adopting a minimum core of human rights approach would set a floor and allow States to establish greater protections. 20. The fourth panellist argued that the Draft LBI covers all entities regardless of their legal nature. Thus, domestic companies are covered so long as they have the capacity to commit human rights violations and their activities span two or more jurisdictions. She noted that no place in the Draft LBI excludes national companies; rather, article 9(5) even suggests they are covered as it references small and medium-sized enterprises, which include national companies. F. Article 5 21. The first panellist suggested some textual revisions to the article, specifically removing references to “natural” persons and, potentially, “association of natural or legal persons.” He noted that: (i) article 5 adds nothing beyond what is already authorized under international law, as it focuses on jurisdiction based on the principles of territoriality and active personality; (ii) it concerns adjudicative jurisdiction rather than prescriptive or 26