A/HRC/40/48 enforcement jurisdiction; (iii) the jurisdiction is to uphold international human rights rather promoting States’ unique sovereign interests; (iv) the article establishes a duty to assert jurisdiction rather than merely permitting it; and (v) the formulation in article 5 (2) (c) is potentially too broad and vague. 22. The second panellist considered article 5 to be largely superfluous as it reflects existing rules of international law. He suggested that (i) the doctrine of forum non conveniens be prohibited; (ii) it should be clearer that courts in home States of TNCs should have jurisdiction over their subsidiaries; and (iii) article 5 (3) should be revised so as to make it easier to institute opt-out class action suits. 23. The third panellist considered the jurisdictional scope of the Draft LBI to be sweeping and overbroad as it permits claimants or activists to bring claims in home States against TNCs and their directors, owners, or even shareholders for actions abroad committed by entities with which TNCs may have had little or no relationship. It also allows plaintiffs to choose an applicable law outside of the forum jurisdiction and provides for universal jurisdiction. According to his view, this approach likely violates international law and principles, threatens State sovereignty, and could increase the risks of legal liability which could lead to a decrease in investments. G. Articles 1, 14 and 15 24. The first panellist suggested that article 14 clarify whether Committee members can be re-elected, require supplementary reports every five years instead of four, and align the Committee’s functions with those from other human rights treaties. Regarding article 15, he proposed specific revisions to the language concerning regional integration organizations and suggested having a low threshold for entry into force. He also proposed a number of revisions to the format of the Draft LBI, including taking the preamble out of the operative section of the LBI and splitting articles 14 and 15 into several articles. 25. The second panellist proposed that a gender-based perspective be adopted throughout the treaty. Emphasizing the special risks women face, she proposed revising article 1 so that it acknowledges gender equality as a fundamental right. Additionally, she suggested revising article 14 so that a gender balance be “achieved” in the Committee. She also noted that article 15 contains crucial provisions that need to be fleshed out in other articles; for example, article 15 (4) should have a corresponding obligation in article 9. 26. The third panellist suggested enhancing the provisions on the Committee, for instance by including provisions prohibiting conflicts of interest for Committee members and for ensuring the participation of civil society and UN agencies. He proposed that the functions of the Conference of States Parties be clarified and expanded. Additionally, he suggested including a provision to cover dispute resolution between States regarding the interpretation and application of the instrument. Panel on “The voices of victims” 27. Four panellists introduced the session by discussing specific incidents of abuses by companies and noting attacks on the freedom of assembly, environmental crimes, land grabbing, and the disproportionate impact of business-related harm on women. They argued that accountability has been elusive (including throughout supply chains) and voluntary mechanisms have not sufficiently addressed these harms; thus, it was imperative to have an LBI that focuses on the need for effective remedy. Some suggested that the Draft LBI include more language on human rights defenders; free, prior and informed consent; precautionary measures; and accountability throughout entire supply chains. 27