A/HRC/14/29 31. Victor Ricco (Strategic Advisor to the Executive Director of the Centre for Human Rights and the Environment) presented and discussed the weaknesses of the international mechanisms. He referred to the lack of integrated strategy for communication between different United Nations agencies and other international bodies, such as the InterAmerican Human Rights Commission and the Ombudsman of the International Finance Corporation, and how this gives rise to fragmented and contradictory guidance from the international mechanisms. He called for the revision of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises to include elements to verify and strengthen guidelines for companies with regard to human rights. Moreover Mr. Ricco pointed out the structural problems States face in complying with their duty to protect. In Latin America, for example, many States have ratified the major human rights treaties but then there is a lack of implementation of those obligations at the domestic level. He called for better access to information from United Nations and regional human rights bodies in order to better facilitate input and participation from civil society in corporate-related human rights cases. Summary of discussion 32. Participants outlined the main obstacles for States to comply with their duty to protect and mentioned, in particular, the stabilization clauses in investment agreements and the fact that not all States have ratified all the United Nations international human rights treaties. It was also suggested that United Nations treaty bodies should consider all human rights issues linked to business and provide better guidance to States. In this context, some civil society representatives reiterated the importance of creating a binding human rights treaty for companies and a mechanism that would both follow up and monitor companies’ compliance with the treaty and also provide remedy and reparation to victims. It was also pointed out that the accountability mechanism of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises — the National Contact Points (NCPs) — is less used than in the past and that this might be an indicator of the lack of effectiveness of this mechanism. A way to improve it could be to provide NCPs with the necessary tools to comply efficiently with their function. 33. State representatives pointed to the difficulty arising from the fact that not all treaties are ratified by all countries. This limits the possibility of corporate-related complaints reaching the relevant treaty bodies. This in turn enhances the importance of regional procedures. They also pointed to the fact that with the changing global economic landscape, many transnational corporations are now from continents other than Europe and North America and that there is a need to consider how to better engage these companies as well as their countries of origin in the discussion about business and human rights. Frenchspeaking countries have engaged in dialogue on improving governance and corporate social responsibility, which is a matter to which both States and other parties should give high priority. Reference was also made to the issue of stabilization provisions in host Government agreements in limiting a State’s ability to meet its human rights obligations. IV. A. Corporate responsibility to respect Human rights due diligence Summary of expert presentations 34. Marietta Paragas (Chief Executive Officer, Shontoug Foundation, the Philippines) discussed the relation between due diligence mechanisms in the mining sector and the importance of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) of indigenous people. She outlined how large-scale mining has impacted civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of GE.10-12935 9