A/HRC/40/48 15. Some delegations requested more clarity with respect to the rights to be covered by the instrument. They noted that “all international human rights and those rights recognized under domestic law”, could vary from State to State, since States ratified different human rights treaties and had different domestic laws. There was a question as to whether such differences would cause implementation issues. 16. Delegations and NGOs expressed their appreciation for the article on jurisdiction since, in their view, the use of extraterritorial jurisdiction by home States was crucial to ensuring that companies could not avoid accountability. However, other delegations voiced concern over the use of extraterritorial jurisdiction. 17. Many delegations and organizations welcomed the focus on prevention, with several NGOs stressing the importance of mandating due diligence activities. 18. Divergent views were expressed with respect to the article on legal liability. Although some delegations and organizations argued that the provision made in the draft instrument for criminal, civil or administrative liability was crucial for victims, other delegations questioned whether it was appropriate to discuss the criminal liability of legal entities, as such liability was not provided for in their jurisdictions. Concern was also raised about the provision authorizing universal jurisdiction. 19. Differing views were also discussed with respect to the relationship between the future instrument and trade and investment agreements. At least one delegation and several organizations stressed the importance of affirming the primacy of human rights over such agreements. However, some delegations were concerned that such an affirmation would prioritize one branch of international law over another and could restrict States’ negotiating positions. With respect to investment more generally, delegations noted the importance of sustainable development and argued that a legally binding instrument would not have a negative effect on investment; rather, it would create a level playing field and ensure that investment occurred in a context in which human rights standards were respected. In that regard, several delegations mentioned the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and pointed out that the Sustainable Development Goals recognized the positive role that could be played by business. 20. Many NGOs and a network of national human rights institutions suggested additions to the draft. In their view, the instrument could more clearly refer to the role and protection of human rights defenders and other at-risk populations. Specific reference was made to indigenous peoples and the importance of free, prior and informed consent. Calls were also made for the greater structural integration of a gender perspective. 21. Delegations thanked the Chair for his intersessional consultations and for leading an inclusive, transparent process of elaborating the draft. However, a regional organization expressed the view that the Chair had not addressed its concerns. It regretted that most of its proposals had not been taken into account, including (a) a suggestion to revert to the Human Rights Council to adopt a new resolution, which could have reaffirmed the mandate for the elaboration of a legally binding instrument; (b) a request that a footnote be added to the programme of work to clarify that the working group could discuss all business enterprises; and (c) a proposal to invite the former Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, John Ruggie, to deliver a keynote speech at the opening of the session. 22. Some delegations noted that the treaty process was not anti-business and that business should have a greater voice in it, whereas other delegations called for the process to be protected from the commercial and vested interests of the business sector. A business organization requested that the business community be consulted more fully, noting that there had been a lack of meaningful discussion with its members on important substantive issues. Several NGOs disagreed that business should be given a greater voice and warned against corporate capture of the process. 23. In addition, delegations and organizations pointed to the need for broader State participation in the process. They noted the risks involved with any instrument that enjoyed only partial support and argued that any legally binding instrument would need traction 6